Mark is right-- LC did put out a white paper on the treatment of reproductions under RDA (the link doesn't appear to have made the transtion on the new PCC site, was: http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/reproductions.pdf -- I'll ask some colleagues to see if it can be resurrected).
As Becky noted, for electronic reproductions, LC would apply either a 'provider-neutral' or 'single record' approach, so the question remaining is for non-electronic reproductions. At this point, for LC almost all of the microform reproductions are created and cataloged in the LC field offices-- we haven't made final decisions yet on whether to follow RDA as written for microform reproductions (as outlined in LCPS 18.104.22.168), or some other approach while we are still in the current MARC-RDA scenario.
Comments from PCC are still of interest to us, and can be sent to [log in to unmask]
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark Ehlert
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 5:23 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Policy on reproductions in RDA
Culbertson, Rebecca <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> At the PCC Ops meeting in 2011, there was strong preference to keep
> using the provider-neutral model for the time being even when all else
> in a record was RDA.
Any word on non-electronic reproductions (photocopies, microfilm, facsimiles, etc.)?
There was a paper issued by LC(?) a couple years ago on a proposed move away from LCRI 1.11A and toward AACR2/RDA practice. Though LC was supposed to have made a decision on this point either before their RDA Day One announcement or before the day itself, none has been forthcoming, at least up to now. Will PCC follow LC practice when it's made? Or forge their own path?
Mark K. Ehlert Minitex
Coordinator University of Minnesota Bibliographic & Technical 15 Andersen Library
Services (BATS) Unit 222 21st Avenue South
Phone: 612-624-0805 Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439 <http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>