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/ ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________