Discussion: Core elements in Distribution and Manufacture Statements

CC:DA/JSC Rep/KPG/2013/4

Discussion paper

Core elements in Distribution and Manufacture Statements: what constitutes “applicable and readily ascertainable”?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Discussion: Core elements in Distribution and Manufacture Statements

  1. Robert Rendall says:

    I think interpretation #2 is preferable, and I hope that is what RDA intended. Looking at the current instructions I can see how you could end up with the other “vortex of horror” interpretation. To make interpretation #2 explicit, you would have to say that e.g. place of distribution is core “if place of publication is not identified *and a place of distribution is readily ascertainable*.” Maybe that is what the instruction is trying to say now, but that would make it a lot clearer how the “readily ascertainable” factor actually applies to these situations (under this interpretation). Should the “readily ascertainable” factor be omitted from the general instruction in 1.3 and specified only when needed under each element?

  2. Tracey L. Snyder says:

    (Q2) I agree with Robert that #2 is preferable, but (Q1) I always sincerely thought that #1 was correct. (Q3) I agree with Robert that we should add language to every spot in ch. 2 where it is needed. It’s not enough to just have it in 1.3. (But I wouldn’t remove it from 1.3.) Let’s use the full wording from 1.3: “if the place of publication is not identified and a place of distribution is applicable and readily ascertainable.” (By the way, small mistake on page 2– “available” should be “ascertainable.”)
    R.I.P. CVOH.

  3. Dominique Bourassa says:

    From the instruction at 1.3, I think RDA’s current approach is option 2. The instructions in RDA 2.8-2.11 are obviously not clear enough because both interpretations can be found in bib. records.

    Question 2. I also think option 2 is much, much preferable (that’s after thinking for a while that interpretation 1 was the real interpretation and dealing with the consequences (the “vortex of horror” mentioned” by Robert)).

    Question 3: I like Robert’s suggestion to add “and a place of distribution is readily ascertainable” to the current instruction. But I think, like Tracey, that the phrase “applicable and readily ascertainable” should remain in RDA 1.3.–Dominique, CC:DA

  4. Robert Rendall says:

    I suggested omitting “readily ascertainable” from the general instruction in 1.3 because I’m not sure it really applies in the same way to all the cases listed below. I don’t think we would ever omit a title proper i.e. a 245 from a record because no title was readily ascertainable. In the case of titles, unlike distributors, we want to tell catalogers they have to enter something no matter what.

Leave a Reply