Just to reply to a couple of your questions in the first instance:
> We've noticed that most people have not abridged the editors- was there
> any particular reason for this? We went for the abridgment option because
> of having had years of the rule of three it goes against the grain to
> clutter up the catalogue with lots of added entries.
As I just said in my previous email, I think we see providing extra access
points and transcribing all authors as a positive thing (particularly to
those authors who weren't named first in a work with 4 or more authors!)
though I do have some concerns about the extra authority work involved.
> A lot of people seem to have used the copyright date - there is actually
> a date of publication, or that's the way we interpreted it anyway, and we
> believe that the rule is that you only use a copyright date if you have
> no date of publication.
You are right that copyright date is not *required* unless there is a date
of publication. However, people are free to include it if they want to as
it is a separate element in its own right. There was some discussion of
this yesterday too, since during the US NAtional Test, Library of Congress
was saying to include copyright date no matter what, so people have become
accustomed to seeing that in RDA records. It's now not required unless the
date of publication & manufacture are missing, but I think some people are
still choosing to add it anyway (which is fine).
Cambridge University Library
Cambridge CB3 9DR