Difference between revisions of "RDA 4.4"
From AC Wiki
(→260 to 264 conversion) |
(→260 to 264 conversion) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
[[image:rda2-1.png]] | [[image:rda2-1.png]] | ||
===260 to 264 conversion=== | ===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. [http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/ | + | 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. The PCC does not recommend converting 260 to 264. [http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/RDA%20Task%20groups%20and%20charges/PCC-Hybrid-Bib-Rec-Guidelines-TG-Report.docx PCC Guidelines p. 20] (pdf) |
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. [http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp2&target=rda2-6048# RDA 2.7.1 Production statement] (html) [http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp2&target=rda2-6382# RDA 2.8.1 Publication statement] (html) [http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp2&target=rda2-6939# RDA 2.9.1 Distribution statement] (html) [http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp2&target=rda2-7298# RDA 2.10.1 Manufacture statement] (html) [http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp2&target=rda2-7601# RDA 2.11.1 Copyright date] (html) | 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. [http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp2&target=rda2-6048# RDA 2.7.1 Production statement] (html) [http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp2&target=rda2-6382# RDA 2.8.1 Publication statement] (html) [http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp2&target=rda2-6939# RDA 2.9.1 Distribution statement] (html) [http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp2&target=rda2-7298# RDA 2.10.1 Manufacture statement] (html) [http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp2&target=rda2-7601# RDA 2.11.1 Copyright date] (html) | ||
Revision as of 18:41, 21 January 2014
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. The PCC does not recommend converting 260 to 264. PCC Guidelines p. 20 (pdf)
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. RDA 2.7.1 Production statement (html) RDA 2.8.1 Publication statement (html) RDA 2.9.1 Distribution statement (html) RDA 2.10.1 Manufacture statement (html) RDA 2.11.1 Copyright date (html)
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.
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
