Publication Data in a 260 Field : LC-PCC Best Practices Guidelines
Myth:
“I can continue to record the publication data in a 260
field.”
Reality:
Incorrect. The 260
has been replaced with the 264 field, for original cataloging using RDA. Remember, also, to properly code the second
indicator according to the function of the entity recorded in this field.
Myth:
“I am not required to transcribe the larger jurisdiction for
the place of publication.”
Reality:
Wrong! You are
required to record this if it is present -- whether or not you think it is
needed.
Myth:
“OK -- but I cannot add the larger jurisdiction if it is not
present on the resource.”
Reality:
Again, wrong! You are
free to add -- in brackets -- the larger jurisdiction if you think it helpful.
Myth:
“Whenever you supply a place of publication, publisher, or
date of publication in brackets, you must include a question mark.”
Reality:
No, the question mark simply means that you are relatively uncertain
of your inference. For example, if you
are sure that the Museum of Modern Art is in New York ,
you don’t need a question mark; if you only ‘think’ it is the one in New York , you can add a
question mark.
Myth:
“I can abridge the name of the publisher if it is lengthy.”
Reality:
Incorrect. You must
record the publisher’s name exactly and as fully as it appears (LC-PCC PS 2.8.1.4
uses the word ‘generally’, which means that -- in the case of corporate
hierarchy -- rare exceptions are allowed).
Myth:
“I must always record every publisher, distributor, and
manufacturer on the resource.”
Reality:
Wrong. Only the first
publisher statement is core.
Myth:
“If I decide to record two publishers, I should do so in
separate 264 fields.”
Reality:
Incorrect. The
purpose of repeatable 264 fields is to record different functions (i.e., publisher,
distributor, manufacturer, date of copyright), or to reflect changes over time
(using the 264 first indicator). If you
wish to record a co-publisher, record both publishers and their places (if the
places are different) in a single 264 field, as you did under AACR2.
Myth:
“I cannot record a copyright date if there is a ‘good’
publication date.”
Reality:
Incorrect! Although
you often use a copyright date to infer a publication data, you certainly may
also record the copyright date in a separate 264 #4 field if you wish (with
only a $c). If you do so, remember to correctly
code the 008 field (Type of Date “t”; Date 1; Date 2).
[Source : Library of Congress]
Comments
Post a Comment