Thanks Sue! We’ll definitely factor this into the planning when we get ready to deal with the complex cases.
I just wanted to make sure you were aware that Rare Book records that also include RDA descriptive standards will be coded both $e rda and $e dcrmb
Both values (not one or the other) will be present in the records.
Some of my batch transformation concerns revolve around cases like the following (there are many variations) where this type of wording appears in subfield “b” of 260
Printed (or imprinted) by X
Printed (or imprinted) by X for Y
Printed (or imprinted) for Y:
For an early printed book, most (but not all) rare book cataloguers would give 264 -1 (as a publisher statement) for all three examples , some would give 264 -3 for the first example, but would usually pair it with another 264 -1 for a publisher statement.
For modern books, most non-rare book cataloguers would code at least the first example as 264 -3 (as a manufacturer statement)
So…. I guess what I am trying to say, is that if BOTH “dcrmb” AND “rda” are present in 040, you might want to use a special algorithm for transforming 260s into 264s, in consultation with the rare materials community.
University of British Columbia Library
2198 Health Sciences Mall, Vancouver BC V6T 1Z3
Tel. 604-822-4995 Email: [log in to unmask]
Thanks, Cynthia, for including the rare materials community in your planning. I have no particular qualms about the process. You're not going to try to break up $e $f $g into separate statements, right? Just straightforward conversion?
Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | [log in to unmask] |
Thank you for the question.
If the record is coded “rda” in 040 $e, the record will be included. And, only records with “rda” in the 040 $e will be included.
If the record has a different code in the 040 $e (see list of codes here: http://www.loc.gov/standards/sourcelist/descriptive-conventions.html) or has no 040 $e, then the record will be excluded from this process.
Will records coded for various rare materials standards be excluded from this conversion process?
Will Evans, MLIS
National Endowment for the Humanities
Chief Librarian in Charge of Technical Services
Library of the Boston Athenaeum
10 1/2 Beacon Street
Boston, MA 02108
Tel: 617-227-0270 ext. 243
OCLC is beginning to convert 260 fields in RDA bibliographic records in WorldCat to 264 fields. Initial conversion will include the straightforward cases, where 260 can easily be converted to 264 for a publication statement. Example:
260 $a London : $b Macmillan Education Limited, $c 
264 1 $a London : $b Macmillan Education Limited, $c 
Once the straightforward cases are complete, we will look at how to update more complex cases.
Background: RDA cataloging instructions were used to create RDA bibliographic records (coded 040 $e rda) prior to implementation of the MARC field 264. Since 264 was implemented in 2012, use of 264 fields instead of the 260 field is preferred for RDA publication data. Because of that gap in time, there are about 1.5 million RDA records in WorldCat with a 260 field instead of 264 fields. Converting 260 to 264 will make the data more consistent, and will facilitate conversion to future data configurations.
The January 2018 AskQC office hours (slides and Q&A available at https://oc.lc/askqc) announced plans for this. For more information, please view those slides and look at the summary and questions from that presentation.
Cynthia M. Whitacre
Manager, Metadata Policy
Metadata Quality, Global Product Management
6565 Kilgour Place, Dublin, Ohio USA 43017
T +1-614-764-6183 · or +1-800-848-5878, ext.6183