Print

Print


Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


>What I haven't seen discussed here is the frequency with which this  
>data is needed.
 
Where a resource is published is data only second to title and
statement of responsibility as wanted information, I suspect, and
perhaps equal with date of publication.  One weakness of our present
cataloguing rules is that resources produced in one place and time,
and republished in another place and time, are not well identified in
the basic description.  MARC has even made obsolete the field which
gave us that information, 503.

The need for this data is why omission of jurisdiction (if not on the
prime source) in RDA is such a disservice to patrons.   

Place of publication is relevant for all resources, from a mystery
novel to a scientific work, and very much so for political works.

Whether exact transcription of place is important (beyond a niche
market to use Karen's phrase, i.e., rare books), is more questionable,
so long as information is complete enough to distinguish between
copies and editions.

Is it just tradition (and Margaret Mann) which makes be favour a
transcribed and enhanced 260$a over 008/15-17, or their equivalents in
a new coding system?  Perhaps it is thinking ISBD distills the
experience of catalogue builders over the generations.

I object to those who quote chapter and verse of present rules to
justify omitting needed data, while at the same time willing to
abandon the most successful international bibliographic standard of all
times.


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