[yul-naco] FW: webinar questions

[Arakawa, Steven]

For those planning to attend next week's Bibco webinar, fyi:
These are the questions I passed on to the LC trainers yesterday. If you think of any additional questions, pass them on to me & I'll forward them.

Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation
Catalog Dept. Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University.
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240   
(203)432-8286 steven.arakawa at yale.edu


-----Original Message-----
From: Arakawa, Steven 
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:17 PM
To: 'BIBCOmail at loc.gov'
Cc: 'cast at loc.gov'
Subject: webinar questions

1. Is there a briefer form of LC PCC PS in general use?  I'm going to use PS in the rest of the questions. 

2. PS 2.8.6.6.  A2. (No publication date; the copyright date is for the year following the year received). Instruction: base the publication date on the copyright date. Cataloger question: why not the year received?

3.  PS  2.11 & PS 2.8.6.6. From the examples in the PS, if there is a bracketed publication date inferred from the copyright date, a 2nd 264 _4 is optional. On 2.11." Record a copyright date for a single-part monograph if neither the date of publication nor the date of distribution is identified." Just wanted to confirm that this means that in the case of a bracketed date of publication inferred from the copyright date, the publication date is considered to be "identified," so the copyright date is optional.

4. [I hope this is coherent; it came up as a result of a local RDA training class]  A number of questions on treatment of dissertations when following RDA. At Yale, we create full cataloging for some of our dissertations (they are mostly handled as minimal cataloging, but we do full cataloging at the request of some Yale departments), and we generally perform full cataloging of other universities' dissertations if there is no fully cataloged record in OCLC. In all cases, what is cataloged is a reproduction of the original manuscript (even the Yale dissertations). The fully cataloged Yale dissertations are the service copies, and are usually photocopy reproductions. The dissertations of other universities are generally print on demand photocopies purchased from ProQuest, but in some cases are microfilm copies generally obtained from ProQuest.

	a. When applying RDA, the reproduction itself is being described (1.11), unlike the LCRI practice of describing the original of the reproduction with a note about the reproduction. In the case of dissertations, since the original was understood to be the source of the description, it was coded in the MARC leader as a manuscript, coded as unpublished in 008, and only a production date was entered in 260.  Question: Under RDA,  it's my understanding that the reproduction is considered to be published. Is this the general understanding? Whether or not the reproduction is considered to be published, there are some questions.
	b.  For a textual dissertation, should the Leader Type of Material be coded a (language material) rather than t (manuscript language material) for the reproduction?
	c. Should the date code be s or  r?  If r, how should we determine the original date and the reprint date? 

If the reproduction is considered to be published, additional questions:
	d. What indicator is appropriate for 264? 0 or 1? Is 0 only used in a record for the official dissertation?
	e. RDA 7.9. seems to focus on the thesis note. While 7.9 requires the year the degree was granted, this is not necessarily publication information.  For a Yale dissertation, would we consider the university (or the department of the university) as the publisher? What is the date of publication? The year the dissertation was received for cataloging, the year of submission, the year of submission with "approximately," or "between [year of submission] and [year of reception for cataloging]" or  the year the degree was granted "[year of submission or the year following]" (see h. below) ?  European dissertations are often issued in a run of multiple copies, where the university is clearly the publisher; this is more ambiguous with microform & print on demand photocopies which seem to be the norm in the US. 
	f. Can the author of the dissertation be considered  the implied publisher? The copyright date, if there, is assigned to the author, I believe. 
	g. In cases where the dissertation is issued by a print on demand service (let's say ProQuest), is ProQuest the publisher? Or is ProQuest the distributor? Or is ProQuest the manufacturer?* There is a company in France or Belgium that issues an "edition" of   French language dissertations originating from different universities. We've always treated companies of this type as reprint publishers, since the dissertations are not print on demand; is ProQuest really no different from these publishers? 
	h. Is a 502 dissertation note appropriate for the reproduction or is it limited to the original? If we use the 502 for the reproduction, the year the degree was granted, if not on the resource, is either the same year the thesis was submitted, or the subsequent year, at least here, so it would be OK to use $d 2013 or 2014?
	i. In the unlikely situation where there is a record for the original manuscript in the catalog or database, do we need a linking note or would 502 be an adequate substitute, assuming it can be used appropriately with the reproduction? (This is more likely to occur in the university's local catalog, I expect)
	j. With respect to microform reproductions: Any idea why RDA is requiring the microfilm reel width in addition to the frame size? RDA 3.5.1.4.9

* Another reason it's important to determine whether a company like ProQuest is the publisher is because that may affect the choice of title page.

Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation Catalog Dept. Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University.
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240   
(203)432-8286 steven.arakawa at yale.edu