Kevin said:
>Standardization is entirely appropriate, and to be desired, for the
>2nd of these. But it is not at all appropriate for the 1st.
If we are following RDA, it now allows the provision of jurisdiction
if lacking on the item, as from the outset it allowed provision of
city *and* jurisdiction if both were lacking. Would you wish to omit
place if not on the item, even if known? While 264 1 is descriptive,
data lacking on the item may be (and SHOULD be) supplied if known.
Square brackets make it clear what was supplied. I assume Bibframe
will have some equivalent to 588?
A "not identified" phrase would not be accurate if the data is known.
In splitting a single 260 into multiple 264s or Bibframe statements,
it should be assumed that any data given only once (place, year) would
apply to all two or three 264s or Bibframe statements.
Kevin's hope that the redundant standardized statement can be
automatically produced from the transcribed statement, would easier
with the provision of jurisdiction in the transcribed statement when
not on the item. Otherwise, which London, Vancouver, or Paris would
not be known. It would be safer and much less complex programming to
always provide jurisdiction, rather than assuming the absence of
jurisdiction means the British London, French Paris, or British
Columbia Vancouver.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
