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 22.214.171.124.4 for the policy on title.
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:
I note that dates of archival collections are covered by the RDA element 126.96.36.199, 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.
Casey A. Mullin
Head of Cataloging and Metadata Services
Western Washington University
Chair, Music OCLC Users Group