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] >