The RDA principle for reproductions is to base the description on the reproduction and not on the original resource. Although the RDA principle currently applies to printed reproductions, it appears that PCC will make an exception for microform reproductions and continue the old LCRI practice of describing the original print resource and adding a 533 note for the reproduction.
Since the specific PCC guidelines have yet to be issued, do not code records for microform as either pcc or rda for the time being. However, locally we will perform some hybrid modifications that will be consistent with OCLC guidelines.
If a microform set is a collection of reproductions, but the set as a whole is "born microform," the record for the collection as a whole should be cataloged as a new microform work under RDA. However, if the set is analyzed, if the individual analytics are reproductions of (presumably) printed resources, the analytic records are allowed to follow LCRI practice.
The 3 "hybrid" elements that should be applied to microform reproductions are:
- In the Leader, use Cataloging Form "i" rather than "a"
- Do not enter the GMD $h [microform] in MARC 245
- Instead, enter fields for content (336), media (337) and carrier (338) type
The descriptive elements 245, 250, 260, 300 and 490 should be copied from the record for the original. Punctuation and abbreviations should be left as is and not modified according to RDA. Continue to use 533 to describe the microform reproduction.
Access points from the original records should be used in the record for the microform unless an rda authority record has been established in a different form. Since PCC will probably require authority records for each access point, it appears unlikely that 042 will be used.
LC practice for microform is likely to continue following the RDA principle of describing the reproduction. See microfilm example in LC-PCC PS 184.108.40.206. Optionally, YUL original cataloging may follow LC practice for microfilm; in that case, the 040 can be coded for rda.