Print

Print


Thanks Nicky

 

Yes, someone else had mentioned to me yesterday they thought it had been
core to include (c) 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 (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

[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 (c) 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]

020 7955 7234

 


Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer


Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer