 |
 |
Thanks Nicky
Yes, someone else had mentioned to me yesterday they thought it had been core to include © in the RDA test, which probably accounts for a lot of what we’re seeing.
It’s helpful to know what you are thinking of doing at Oxford Bernadette.
Has anyone else been thinking about policy issues like this?
Helen
From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bernadette Mary O'Reilly
Sent: 24 October 2012 10:48
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 2
I think Oxford policy will be to include copyright date if there is one. Probably easier to have a simple rule to record it without having to think about it (and to have 264_4$c © in our templates) than to include copyright only when different and risk having it forgotten sometimes. But we probably wouldn’t make a point of adding it to downloaded records.
Best wishes,
Bernadette
*******************
Bernadette O'Reilly
Catalogue Support Librarian
01865 2-77134
Bodleian Libraries,
Osney One Building
Osney Mead
Oxford OX2 0EW.
*******************
From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nicky Ransom
Sent: 24 October 2012 10:41
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 2
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
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
020 7955 7234
Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer