Difference between revisions of "RDA 4.4"
From AC Wiki
(→260 to 264 conversion) |
(→260 to 264 conversion) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
'''converted to 264 field''': | '''converted to 264 field''': | ||
| − | 264 1 $a [ | + | 264 1 $a [place of publication not identified] :$b [publisher not identified], $c 2005.</font> |
| + | |||
| + | <font size="3"> | ||
| + | '''original field''': | ||
| + | 260 $a Berlin :$b N. Simrock ;$a Paris :$b Maison G. Flaxland, successeurs, $c [1908?] | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''converted to 264 field''': | ||
| + | 264 1 $a Berlin :$b N. Simrock, $c [1908?] | ||
| + | 264 2 $a Paris :$b Maison G. Flaxland, successeurs, $c [date of distribution not identified]</font> | ||
==Default== | ==Default== | ||
Revision as of 07:42, 3 April 2013
RDA 4.4: Convert 260 to 264
260 to 264 conversion
As there may not always be an easily identifiable way to distinguish between a publisher and distributor in 260 fields, this proposed conversion from 260 to 264 may not be completely reliable.
Still, as an attempt to transition 260 fields to 264 fields, this potential solution may be worth exploring on your part. Our recommendation is to follow through with this in sampling and then decide whether to keep it in your full processing.
original field: 260 $a Mason City, Iowa :$b Sunburst Pub., $c c1992. converted to 264 fields: 264 1 $a Mason City, Iowa :$b Sunburst Pub., $c [1992] 264 4 $c ©1992
original field: 260 $c 2005. converted to 264 field: 264 1 $a [place of publication not identified] :$b [publisher not identified], $c 2005.
original field: 260 $a Berlin :$b N. Simrock ;$a Paris :$b Maison G. Flaxland, successeurs, $c [1908?] converted to 264 field: 264 1 $a Berlin :$b N. Simrock, $c [1908?] 264 2 $a Paris :$b Maison G. Flaxland, successeurs, $c [date of distribution not identified]
Default
| Attempt to convert 260 fields to 264 fields, removing the original 260 fields in the process. |
links
1.0 - 2.0 - 3.0 - 4.0 - 5.0 - 6.0
