 |
 |
Hello fellow cataloguers, I hope you don't mind me asking an RDA practice related question. I have recently started working in a new library and the practice of treating originals and reprints is very different from what I am used to. We are still using AACR2 but will be moving to RDA soonish and we are looking at local practices that might need to be changed when moving to RDA. Currently, cataloguers have a rule that reprints from the same publisher are being put on the same record as the original publication. For example, Family law first published by Routledge in 2016, and paperback edition published in 2019, are going to have a single record, with original date of 2016 in the 260 field and we would only mention the reprint date in 008, where we would use the code r for reprint and put in both newest and the original date. This practice is not something I am used to, I personally, would always create a new record for a reprint and use the latest date in the 260 or 264, mention it's a reprint in 500 and give both dates in 008. My question is, would you consider a hardback and a paperback published by the same publisher but in different years, two different manifestations, therefore needing 2 separate records? I would appreciate if you could help me with this one as I am having trouble explaining why I think the hardback and the paperback should have separate records. Kind regards, Vanesa Vanesa Conjar Cataloguer, Room 106, The Sir Duncan Rice Library University of Aberdeen Bedford Road AB24 3AA Tel No: +44 (0)1224 272592 email: [log in to unmask] The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683. Tha Oilthigh Obar Dheathain na charthannas cl?raichte ann an Alba, ?ir. SC013683. ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the CIG-E-FORUM list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CIG-E-FORUM&A=1