Quoting "J. McRee Elrod" <[log in to unmask]>:

> 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.

We're going to need real data on that. I don't recall myself EVER  
looking at place of publication when identifying and selecting and  
obtaining from a library catalog.

The only studies I know of were conducted by Jan Pisanski and Maja  
Zumer, in which library users were given bibliographic entries on  
cards and asked to put them in order, (in part I) and to determine  
"substitutability" (part II).

Their results for substitutability were:

Table 4: Number of persons giving particular reason for the pairs not  
to be substitutable

Element Frequency
Text 29
Medium 28
Contents 25
Format 19
Age 16
Visual elements 13
Movie connection 10
Added elements 10
Additional material 8
Typesetting 8
No. of volumes 7
No. of stories 7
Series 6
Picture material 5
Author 5
Paper 4
Price 3

Users were able to name their own criteria, and place of publication  
does not appear (unless it is in 'added elements' but I can't find  
that in the paper). The results are very interesting because they  
actually follow users in how they choose. This study isn't large and  
can't be taken as gospel, but I don't know of others. It would be  
great to repeat their methodology in different countries and contexts.

Definitely worth reading:


>  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://
>   ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________

Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask]
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet