Thanks for picking up on all these points, Alan - very helpful
From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Danskin, Alan
Sent: 24 October 2012 13:22
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] CIG-E-FORUM Digest - 24 Oct 2012 - Special issue (#2012-19)
I have been lurking in the background picking up on some of the issues and questions being raised.
1.7.1 Follow the instructions in appendix A, unless (first alternative) you are following your own in-house guidelines or (2nd alternative) you are using derived information, in which case you can retain the source capitalisation
You are only required to record this if neither the publication date or the date of distribution have been identified. If you do record it, use the © or ℗ symbol or if this isn't practical spell out the term in full, e.g. "copyright".
You can use the copyright date to supply the date or probable date of publication (in 264 1 $c). The usual convention for indicating that information has been supplied by the cataloguer is to enclose it in square brackets. A probable date is followed by a question mark.
It is probably good practice to record the copyright date explicitly even if you are using it to supply the date of publication, but that is up to you.
ISBN / ISSN
RDA 22.214.171.124 tells you to record identifiers for the manifestation the display form if one is prescribed. However, we all have to implement this in different systems. So at BL we are recording ISBNs in normalised form (no label and no hyphens) but ISSN with hyphens. We leave MARC to supply the labels from the coding and the front end to handle the user display.
Relationship designators between persons, families and corporate bodies and resources
RDA doesn't require these, but BL will be making them. One of the real strengths of RDA is the focus on making relationships explicit. This may have limited utility in the short term, but in the longer term it will pay dividends.
If you are cataloguing using RDA elements, then the elemetns will specify the broad nature of the relationship and the designators should be regarded as refinements, However if you are cataloguing in MARC the 1XX and 7XX can't be equated with creator / contributor so, in order to make the relationship explicit, use a term from the appendices.
Note that there has been some debate over the use of creator, contribuor, etc. as broad terms in $e. I don't personally have a problem with that, as MARC has nowhere else to put them, but that is my opinion and not shared by everyone...
Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer