Categories
Uncategorized

Историко-литературный обзоръ древне-русскихъ полемическихъ сочинений противъ латиниань, XI-XV в. Андрея Попова. (OCLC #923014236)

Under AACR2, facsimile reprints were cataloged with most fields (publisher, date, dimensions, etc) reflecting the original item, with a 533 note providing information about the publisher that created the reprint. Under RDA, the main data reflects the piece in hand, with a link to the data to the original piece (which includes original publisher, date, ec).

For example, in this piece I recorded:

264 _1 ǂa Ann Arbor, Michigan : ǂb University Microfilms, ǂc 1968.
300 __ ǂa vii, 417 pages ; ǂc 22 cm
776 08 ǂi Reproduction of (manifestation): ǂa Popov, Andreĭ Nikolaevich, 1841-1881. ǂt Istoriko-literaturnyĭ obzorʹ drevne-russkikhʹ polemicheskikhʹ sochineniĭ protivʹ latini︠a︡nʹ, XI-XV v. ǂd Moskva : Tipografiia T. Risʹ, 1875. ǂw (DLC)   65083011 ǂw (OCoLC)6365868

RDA does not describe MARC practices, so gives no guidance on Fixed Fields, so I did what seemed most reasonable following BibFormats:

    Form: r   Ctry: miu    DtSt: r  Date1: 1875    

The date of the content is also reflected in the call number, followed by a lowercase a to indicate that it is a facsimile.

    BX1763 .P58 1875a

Do you do anything different when you catalog these?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.