<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
We have not investigated this with MARBI, and I learned long ago not to
attempt to predict their reaction to anything, but . . .<br>
<br>
I think that a distinctive MARC field for supplied edition statements
might be a solution to this problem, but I'm not sure of the scope of
the problem.<br>
<br>
First, RDA to the contrary, is there a general consensus (i.e., beyond
the DCRM community) that supplied edition statements in the "official"
Edition Statement element (field 250) are a bad idea? My sense is that
rare materials catalogers (at least in the DCRM context) are reluctant
to supply data not present on the item. However, it is not clear to me
that general catalogers have the same reluctance. So is this simply a
rare materials fix?<br>
<br>
Second, is there any reason to restrict this to Edition Statements? I
could see the same argument being made for any transcribed data
element, and therefore the potential for a number of other fields for
supplied statements.<br>
<br>
I think that MARBI might be open to adding one or more new fields; it
seems an obvious extension of the "take what you see" principle that
supplied data in a transcribed element be distinctly tagged. However,
several points need to be clarified before they will see this as a
problem that needs to be solved.<br>
<br>
John<br>
<br>
On 11/15/2010 12:01 PM, dooleyj wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:C906A770.420D%25dooleyj@oclc.org" type="cite">
<title>Re: [DCRM-L] RDA Follow-up to "Cataloging Defensively" Webinar
re edition statements</title>
<font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 10pt;">I’m interested to know whether the RBMS Bib
Standards Committee has investigated possible MARBI receptiveness, and
interest from the cataloging community, in a field for supplied edition
statements. And given that there is growing consensus that MARC is on
its last legs, not to mention the demise of the 503, do you have a
sense that a new field is a likely solution? -Jackie<br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 10pt;"><br>
</span></font>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>