Comments in-line.
Yours,
Kevin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 7:36 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Proposal to handle "Providers" differently
>
> Kevin said:
>
> >Standardization is entirely appropriate, and to be desired, for the 2nd
> >of these. But it is not at all appropriate for the 1st.
>
> If we are following RDA, it now allows the provision of jurisdiction if lacking
> on the item, as from the outset it allowed provision of city *and* jurisdiction
> if both were lacking. Would you wish to omit place if not on the item, even if
> known? While 264 1 is descriptive, data lacking on the item may be (and
> SHOULD be) supplied if known.
> Square brackets make it clear what was supplied. I assume Bibframe will
> have some equivalent to 588?
>
> A "not identified" phrase would not be accurate if the data is known.
>
> In splitting a single 260 into multiple 264s or Bibframe statements, it should
> be assumed that any data given only once (place, year) would apply to all two
> or three 264s or Bibframe statements.
Thanks for the info.
>
> Kevin's hope that the redundant standardized statement can be
> automatically produced from the transcribed statement, would easier with
> the provision of jurisdiction in the transcribed statement when
> not on the item.
Agreed. Ultimately, however, it is a cataloging/policy decision how such things as publication statements are recorded.
Otherwise, which London, Vancouver, or Paris would
> not be known. It would be safer and much less complex programming to
> always provide jurisdiction, rather than assuming the absence of jurisdiction
> means the British London, French Paris, or British Columbia Vancouver.
>
>
>
> __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
> ___} |__
> \__________________________________________________________
|