We are including an access point for the thesis advisor in our ETD records.  We didn’t in our print/manuscript ones.
Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Elder, Dana
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 7:16 AM
To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Subject: 264 and 710 in ETC redords


I am cataloging electronic theses & dissertations (ETDs) and have a couple questions about best practices in RDA.


According to OCLC Bibformats 3.1 – Special Cataloging Guidelines for Theses and Dissertations


Electronic theses and dissertations that are remotely accessible via the Web should be treated as published items and cataloged as original electronic publications, as explained in AACR2 9.4B2

AACR2 9.4B2: “Consider all remote access electronic resources to be published.

RDA “Consider all online resources to be published.


So, even though place of publication and publisher were almost always omitted in AACR2 records for theses and dissertations, whether in print or online, I believe the place of publication and publisher should be included in the 264 field of an RDA record for an ETD. Am I correct?



264 _1 [Medford, Massachusetts]: |bTufts University, |c 2013.


Also,  according to the same OCLC document:

“Omit added entries for advisors, the institution, made-up thesis collection or series titles in fields 246, 700–740 and 8xx. Use the 79x fields for these kinds of added entries.”


As with the instruction to omit place of publication and publisher, is this instruction meant to pertain only to print theses and dissertations which are considered unpublished items?  Since an ETD is considered a published item, can a cataloger include an added author field for the institution?



710 2_ Tufts University.|bDepartment of Psychology




Dana Elder

Cataloging and Metadata Services

Tisch Library, Tufts University

35 Professor's Row

Medford, MA 02155

[log in to unmask]