Your Bar/Bat mitzvah : Pareshah and Haftarah with commentary. Vayishlach, Genesis 32:4 to 36:43 / Union of American Hebrew Congregations. (OCLC #1002064723)

The title proper of this piece “Your Bar/Bat mitzvah” has a forward slash in it, which is a punctuation mark used in ISBD to precede the first statement of responsibility. Is anyone going to be confused by this record, and think it is the title “Your Bar” written by “Bat mitzvah”? It doesn’t seem likely.

AACR2 had this concern with a few punctuation marks, as described in AACR2 1.1B1:

If the title proper as given in the chief source of information includes the punctuation marks … or [ ], replace them by – and ( ), respectively.

But RDA’s primary rule for this (1.7.3) is “Transcribe punctuation as it appears on the source” allowing the Alternative “If transcribing punctuation as it appears on the source significantly hinders clarity, either omit or modify the punctuation, as necessary.”

So if we thought our patrons might be confused and read this as an author named Bat Mitzvah, we could modify punctuation in the title proper for clarity.


The occult sourcebook / Nevill Drury and Gregory Tillett ; illustrated by Elizabeth Trafford Smith. (OCLC #4473790)

RDA 2.8.2 on Place of Publication says that if more that one place is listed on the source of information, only the first one is core, but other guidelines suggest more:

The LC-PCC PS says: for rare books, record all places of publication. For CIP cataloging, if the first place is not in the U.S., also record the first U.S. location (similar to AACR2).

The NLA PS says: for some publications (such as those from multinational publishers), record all places if the first one is not in Australia.

The D-A-CH says: if more than one place is listed on the resource, record all of them if possible.

The MLA BP says: if you are unsure which is the “true” place of publication, record them all. 

This (hybrid) record was created pre-RDA, so includes more than one place:

260 __ ǂa London ; ǂa Boston : ǂb Routledge &
    K. Paul, ǂc 1978.

Мифологические рассказы русских крестьян XIX-ХХ вв / составление, подготовка текстов, вступительная статья и комментарии М.Н. Власовой.(OCLC #900161990)

RDA on recording the extent of a Single Volume with Numbered Pages, Leaves, or Columns, says to “record the last numbered page, leaf, or column in each sequence and follow it with the appropriate term”. For this title, I recorded this:

300 __ ǂa 909 pages ; ǂc 24 cm

but noticed that the bibliography went from 909 to the following page. But how to reference that?

Under AACR2, this would have been simple:

504 __ ǂa Includes bibliographical references (p. 909-[910]).

RDA does not bracket unnumbered pages in notes, but it would have felt odd to refer to pages 909-910 when there were only 909 pages in the extent. I could have recorded the extent as “909 pages, 1 unnumbered page” but that would not have made the 504 clearer, so I just went with:

504 __ ǂa Includes bibliographical references.

The future is now : the significance of precognition, by Arthur W. Osborn. (OCLC #492222)

RDA on Recording Publication Statements says to transcribe places of publication and publishers’ names as they appear on the source of information. For this title, the Publisher’s Name would be recorded as “Theosophical Publishing House”. Under AACR2 (1.4D) the publisher would be recorded in the shortest form in which it can be understood and identified internationally, which in this case (depending on cataloger’s judgment) could be:

Theosophical Publishing House

Theosophical Pub. House

Theosophical Pub.



Ludus Danielis / Rafaėlʹ Levchin. (OCLC #52873141)

Under AACR2, when elements of the publication statement are not identified, these Latin abbreviations are recorded instead:

  • Place of publication: S.l. – sine loco
  • Publisher’s name: s.n. – sine nomine

There is no phrase for unknown date; one can usually at least guess at the century, like: [19–?]

For this title, some elements are unknown, so this was recorded as:

260 __ ǂa [S.l. : ǂb s.n.], ǂc 2002.

On a catalog card, this would be very clear, as the brackets would clearly surround both, but in an electronic environment where each subfield is separately indexed, the meaning of the brackets is less clear:

  • Place of publication: [S.l
  • Publisher’s name: s.n.]

Under current ISBD rules, each element would each get its own brackets:

[S.l.] : [s.n.], 2002.

In RDA, these concepts are expressed in phrases:

[Place of publication not identified] : [Publisher not identified],
[Date of publication not identified].

though their use is generally not recommended. The LC-PCC PS for RDA says to supply a probably place of publication when possible, and the one for RDA includes a detailed procedure for supplying a probably publication date.


Engineering and scientific manpower in the United States, Western Europe and Soviet Russia. (OCLC #10996318)

My catalog’s record for the electronic resource abbreviates United States in the 245 $a:

    Engineering and Scientific Manpower in the U.S.,
        Western Europe and Soviet Russia.

That seemed strange; it’s an AACR2 record, and though many things are abbreviated in AACR2, I didn’t remember this ever happening for title proper. Maybe they didn’t get the title from the cover?

A closer look at the record revealed this phrase as part of a note:

    Record is based on bibliographic data in ProQuest U.S.
        Congressional Research Digital Collection

This was likely an input convention for that particular database, whose data was then crosswalked into (mostly) AACR2-style records.

I am undecided on whether this would be appropriate (if not ideal) under RDA. RDA says that for ebooks, the title proper should be taken from the image of the title page, though one could argue for the alternative: when creating records in batch, the title page image is not readily available, and the metadata is permanently (!) affixed to that digital edition.

Is strict adherence to the “preferred” source of information preferable to quick record creation/availability? How important is the title proper of the manifestation if there is enough other data (e.g. SuDoc number) to link that manifestation with other versions of the expression/work?


Dismantling the bomb and managing the nuclear materials : summary. (OCLC #29195498)

The AACR2 record for this title includes the note:

    500 __ ǂa "September 1993"--P. [4] of cover.

which means that the quoted phrase appears on the cover on the back of the piece. The cover is logically paginated: 1 (front of front cover), 2 (back of front cover), 3 (inside of back cover), 4 (outside of back cover). Since the cover doesn’t actually have those page numbers printed on it, they are bracketed in the note.

In RDA, the LC-PCC policy statement for punctuation in notes says to not use square brackets in notes except when they are used in quoted data, so the RDA record would have this note:

    500 __ ǂa "September 1993"--P. 4 of cover.