On Wednesday, May 03, 2017 10:14 AM, Eric Lease Morgan wrote:
> To what degree have any of us done massive RDA work in our catalogs, and
> similarly, to what degree have some of the community's MARC programming
> libraries have been modified to account for RDA rules?

For our records, we haven't done anything to the AACR2-originated records, aside from maintaining headings that have been updated, as I come across them. All of our current/new records are done according to RDA, but I wanted to avoid hybrid records for the older AACR2 records.

I've updated a few of the Perl modules I maintain (MARC::Lint, MARC::Lintadditions, MARC::Errorchecks) to account for changes related to RDA, but haven't gotten around to all of the changes I'd like to do (for example, there are a number of video recording-related checks that I need to update due to the new 3XX fields taking place of the 538; and 300-vs.-490 ending punctuation now that "cm" is a symbol rather than abbreviation).

>Similarly, RDA seems to define a publication field in MARC 264. Correct? Yet the venerable Perl-based MARC::Record module (still) pulls publication dates from MARC 260. [1]

It seems odd that it pulled the 260$c in the first place, rather than taking the date from 008/07-10. While 264_1$c would be better for the publication date than 260$c was, given its more specific meaning, by taking it from $c, you still have to deal with the extra punctuation and possible other things ("[2016?]"; "[2010] i.e. 1990"; " 5730 [1969 or 1970]"; "Heisei 1 [1989]"; etc.).


Bryan Baldus
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]