Kathie Goldfarb said:

>I personally have always questioned the place of publication
>appearing to be more important than the publisher ...

It's coming first in imprint does not mean it is more important does
it?  For legal materials, place of publication is *vital*, second to
nothing except topic.

For DVDs, the place of the DVD distributor is meaningless, and bears
no relationship to the place of production, which makes not dividing
655  7 $aFeature films.$2lcgft by place *very* irksome.

The coding, mapping, and indexing of 257 is too uneven to be helpful.

I wonder if RDA could be interpreted to MARC code DVD imprints as 260  
$aPlace of production :$bProduction company,$cYear of production
$e(Place of DVD manufacturer/distributor :$bManufacturer,$cYear of
manufacture.)?  Certainly such a formulation for video recordings in a
new coding system would be much more helpful to patrons, as well as
for reprints of classics, for which the location of the reprinter, and
date of the reprint, are not very important to patrons.

Yes, what information should be coded in a new coding system, and how
it should be coded, has little empirical knowledge to allow wise
choices.


   __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
  {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________