[DCRM-L] RDA Follow-up to "Cataloging Defensively" Webinar re edition statements

[John Attig]

We have not investigated this with MARBI, and I learned long ago not to 
attempt to predict their reaction to anything, but . . .

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.

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?

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.

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.

         John

On 11/15/2010 12:01 PM, dooleyj wrote:
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20101115/73f8517e/attachment.htm