Print

---

What is the effect of omitting 264 in favor of 245 $f in various systems,
especially in searching and presentation by date of search results? Might
we say that in 245 it serves primarily as information, in 264 as a datum
(adjunct to and perhaps more nuanced than MARC 008 date)?

RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
<Richard_Noble@Br <[log in to unmask]>own.edu>

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:09 AM, McDonald, Stephen <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> It looks to me that PCC practice is to follow DACS practice for the title
> and RDA practice for the 264.  See LC-PCC PS 2.3.2.11.4 for the policy on
> title.
>
>
>
>
> Steve McDonald
>
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> GOV] *On Behalf Of *Christine DeZelar-Tiedman
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:59 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] Dates in 245/264 for an archival collection
>
>
>
> DACS practice would be to use 245 $f and $g and omit 264, so my guess
> agrees with yours, that the duplication is to try to cover both rda and
> dacs bases. I'd be interested in other opinions, but DACS and RDA are
> different enough that I don't think they should be combined in one record.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Casey Mullin <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> [excuse cross-posting]
>
>
>
> Dear CW,
>
>
>
> I note that dates of archival collections are covered by the RDA element
> 2.7.6.7, which maps to 264 _0 $c. There is an optional addition for the
> bulk dates, in addition to the inclusive dates.
>
>
>
> My question is: is there provision in RDA for *also* (or instead) giving
> these date ranges in 245 $f and $g? Example:
>
>
>
> 245 ...  papers, ǂf 1861-2015 ǂg (bulk 1923-1995).
>
> 264 _0ǂc 1861-2015, bulk 1923-1995.
>
>
>
> I note that 245 $f and $g are not included in the MARC to RDA
> Bibliographic mapping in the Toolkit. So my initial answer to my own
> question would be no.
>
>
>
> Some cursory searching in OCLC for archival collection records coded RDA
> reveals a diversity in practice. Sometimes 245 $f (and $g if applicable)
> are given, but 264 is not. Sometimes both. Sometimes the inclusive dates
> are given in both fields, but the bulk dates in 245 only. Etc. Does such a
> redundancy suggest a practice "borrowed" from DACS (which I am not versed
> in); some records I found are coded *both* dacs and rda in 040.
>
>
>
> I'm OK with the 245/264 redundancy for our local purposes, but I'd like to
> ensure our records are RDA-compliant.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Casey
>
> ________________________________
>
> Casey A. Mullin
> Head of Cataloging and Metadata Services
> Western Washington University
>
>
> Chair, Music OCLC Users Group
>
>
>
> 360-650-7458 <(360)%20650-7458>
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Christine DeZelar-Tiedman
> Metadata and Emerging Technologies Librarian
> University of Minnesota Libraries
> 160 Wilson Library                      (612) 625-0381 PH
> 309 19th Ave. S.                        (612) 625-3428 FAX
> Minneapolis, MN 55455               [log in to unmask]
>