Proposal: Clarifying core element status for “not identified” elements in the Distribution and Manufacture Statements (RDA 2.9 and 2.10)

Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Proposal: Clarifying core element status for “not identified” elements in the Distribution and Manufacture Statements (RDA 2.9 and 2.10)

  1. Kathy Glennan says:

    In their response, LC suggests taking a different approach: removing the conditional core statements for the distribution and manufacture elements, as well as for the copyright date.

    I would like to hear from CC:DA members & liaisons about their reaction to this course of action.

  2. Robert Rendall says:

    Comments from John Attig, Penn State University:

    I think LC’s proposal would be acceptable — although I wonder whether it is really as simple as eliminating the core requirements for distribution, manufacture, and copyright statements. Would that legitimize recording only “xxx not identified” in the Publication Statement?

  3. Robert Rendall says:

    My own comments: I would be willing to support LC’s approach. I think we could leave the decision that, for example, recording a printer’s name might be a good idea when no publisher or distributor is identified to cataloger’s judgement, rather than mandating it with the current set of conditional core requirements.

  4. Matthew Haugen says:

    I’m having difficulty envisioning how these approaches would bear out in practice, especially for resources lacking publication statements or parts thereof which DO have other statements.

    In the absence of any statements at all, it makes some sense to record [place of publication not identified] : [publisher not identified], [date of publication not identified] or attempt to supply something. But if there is a manufacture statement, but no publication statement, I think the conditional core scenario should have had the outcome of simply transcribing that statement. If all I have is “London : Printed by John Smith, 1903,” do I still have to record [place of publication not identified] : [publisher not identified], [date of publication not identified] too, or should I still attempt to supply values for the publication statement to satisfy the core requirement, and then leave it to cataloger’s judgment whether or not to transcribe the statement I have? I’m not sure the removal of conditional core requirements for distribution and manufacture statements fixes this dilemma.

    I also think the outcomes of 6JSC/BL rep/1 will bear on this proposal . If PPDM elements are recorded separately as attributes/relationships in addition to transcribed statements, which are core? Would it be necessary to record [xxx not identified] values in some or all of these separate elements as well? We don’t, for example, currently record [author not identified] in either 100 or 245 $c. But 264 $a [place of publication not identified] and $c [date of publication not identified] can be represented in fixed fields.

  5. Robert L. Maxwell says:

    I’m not sure I understand ACOC’s objection. I think the gist of ALA’s proposal was *exactly* to avoid having to record “place of manufacture unidentified” etc., even when we haven’t been able to record the corresponding element in the publication statement.

  6. Robert L. Maxwell says:

    I like CCC’s alternative wording to “omit”

  7. Robert L. Maxwell says:

    On LC’s response.

    p. 1-2. It is not that the statement is “not applicable”; it is that the statement is not “readily ascertainable” (see 0.6.1). Neither of LC’s possible interpretations is correct in my opinion. Publication, distribution, copyright and manufacture statements are always “applicable” or nearly always; a published book for example is always distributed, it is always manufactured, under current law it always has a copyright date; so all those elements are “applicable”. But they are not always (or even usually) “readily ascertainable.”

    I can’t say I’m too happy with simply dropping the conditional coreness of the distribution, manufacture, and copyright elements. The point of all that is that we want to try to record *something* about the date, place, and responsible entity in order to give users of the database context to help them identify or select the resource. So I think it’s important to say to the cataloger that you *do* need to record something *if you can* about at least one of these four elements. But we also need to say that if you *can’t* record anything you don’t need to, including the silly “… not identified” phrases. It’s never been clear to me why these elements alone have this sort of a negative phrase to record; other elements that aren’t readily ascertainable are simply left out of the description.

Leave a Reply