 |
 |
So interesting to see all the differences in the records! I debated about putting the copyright date in another 264, but decided against it where it is the same as the date of publication. There seems to have been quite a debate about this on RDA-L but I notice that the BL guidelines state "record the copyright date if it is different from the publication date", and the LC-PCC PS for 2.11 states "LC practice for Core Element: Record a copyright date for a single-part monograph if neither the date of publication nor the date of distribution is identified." Nicky Ransom Data Quality Manager & Cataloguer University for the Creative Arts Farnham GU9 7DS 01252 892739 [log in to unmask] ________________________________ From: CIG E-Forum [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Helen Williams [[log in to unmask]] Sent: 24 October 2012 10:31 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 2 Thank you to everyone who has submitted a version of record 2. It’s time to open up discussion on anything you’d like to raise. It’s going to be very useful to talk about the differences we see in records, and on some issues we may be able to come to consensus, while other areas will remain open to interpretation! Any comments we make won’t be criticisms of differences in records, so please feel free to discuss. A few things I’ve noticed to start us off… *some of us have included a second 264 field with a © date * some of us (including me!) have included a relationship designator of ‘author’ – what’s the feeling about whether this is necessary on a straightforward record? * A few people have included related works/manifestations Plenty of other differences too, so let’s open the discussion Helen Helen Williams Assistant Librarian, Bibliographic Services LSE Library Services The London School of Economics and Political Science 10 Portugal Street London WC2A 2HD [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> 020 7955 7234 Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer