[DCRM-L] [DCRM-RDA] PCC guidelines for coding MARC 21 264 field

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Manon, do you mind forwarding this to DCRM-L, that we have identified DCRM-L as the appropriate forum for discussion of all dcrm rda topics? And perhaps indicate your role in writing this--I assume it is as a member of the PCC working on these things. dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu

Thanks,
Deborah

-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-rda-bounces at lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:dcrm-rda-bounces at lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Manon Theroux
Sent: Tuesday, 12 June 2012 11:05
To: Catherine Uecker
Cc: dcrm-rda at lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [DCRM-RDA] PCC guidelines for coding MARC 21 264 field

FYI - I did get to comment on an early draft of these PCC guidelines and mentioned some of the issues that I thought would apply for rare materials, This might explain the inclusion of the 2nd paragraph in the announcement. Appending my original comments below.

Manon

--------------------------------

Les,

Just an FYI that these guidelines might not be sufficient for those doing special collections cataloging. I know the BSR for Rare Books has not yet been revised for RDA (and DCRM(B) has not been revised for RDA), so you might not be concerned with the special collections community right now. But here are a few issues that I think will need to be taken into consideration before too long:

1) Early printed materials do not necessarily have statements that make explicit distinctions among the roles of publisher, distributor, and manufacturer (the industries themselves had not yet fully developed into separate entities in the modern sense). The resource might simply say "printed by xxx" but the printer will usually also have functioned as the publisher and the bookseller. DCRM(B) rules call for treating the printer as a publisher in such cases (i.e.
transcribing in 260$b rather than 260$f). Would the cataloger therefore use 264 2nd indicator value "1" (continuing the current approach)? Or use 264 2nd indicator value "3"? LCPS for 2.8.1.1 does have two categories of materials for which printers are treated as publishers (government printers and private presses), and I'm assuming we'd continue to do the same for early printers but it would be good to iron that out.

2) Even when the resource does explicitly differentiate among the roles, it is still common to have one person or body perform those multiple roles. The resource might say "published and sold by xxx".
Currently, that entire phrase would go in 260$b. If using a 264, would the cataloger code the 2nd indicator according to the first role that happens to be mentioned in the "combo" statement? This situation is not unique to rare materials, but it probably happens more often than with modern materials.

3) Even if the resource has different roles performed by different people, the resource may carry a single "grammatically integrated"
statement rather than multiple statements. Rules for cataloging rare materials have long said not to break apart such statements. The resource might say "printed by xxx for yyy" or "printed by xxx and sold by yyy". Currently, the entire phrase would go in a single 260$b.
Again, this situation is not unique to rare materials, but it might happen more often than with modern materials.

Finally, MARC21 says "Field 260 is useful for cases where the content standard or institutional policies used do not make a distinction between functions." I'm not sure if the special collections cataloging community we will want to hold onto the 260 field for some portion of its future cataloging or not, but I know it was identified as a possible option back when the RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee discussed the MARBI proposal that led to the creation of the 264 field.

Manon


On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Catherine Uecker <cuecker at uchicago.edu> wrote:
> FYI for list members not on the PCC listserv.   Catherine
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> [mailto:BIBCO at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV] On Behalf Of Hawkins, Les
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 9:33 AM
> To: BIBCO at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV
> Subject: PCC guidelines for coding MARC 21 264 field
>
>
>
> PCC guidelines for coding MARC 21 264 field are available from:
> http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/documents/264-Guidelines.doc The guidelines
> were developed with the help of staff from the Library of Congress
> Policy and Standards Division and other stakeholders.
>
>
>
> It should be noted that these guidelines do not address the
> application of the 264 field for materials cataloged under the
> standards for Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (DCRM) or other
> standards for specialized materials. The communities working on the
> application of RDA for specialized materials will need to develop
> appropriate guidelines for using the 264 field with those materials.
>
>
>
> If there are questions or comments about this document, please send
> them to coop at loc.gov.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Les Hawkins
>
> CONSER Coordinator
>
> Library of Congress
>
> lhaw at loc.gov
>
>