Re: [Heb-NACO] Date Status (DtSt) and Dates in the fixed field

[Joan Biella via Heb-naco]

I’d like to repeat and stress Jasmin’s endorsement of a “consistent,
standard practice.”  Certain questions like this one arise over and over
again in Hebraica cataloging, and can be settled only by adopting a
standard—there is one, generally used by the largest libraries.  Teach the
standard.  Let cataloging be a big tent, open to all who can follow
standard practices no matter how shallow or deep their backgrounds in
particular fields like Hebraica.

Joan, possibly tending toward curmudgeonhood in Northern California.


On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 9:19 AM Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco <
heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> wrote:

> Hi, Cliff, Your thought about probability is interesting. Nevertheless,
> our documented practice has been to use the earlier of the two possible
> dates for both the call no. date and fixed field date. Please see the
> Classification and Shelflisting
>
> Hi, Cliff,
>
>
>
> Your thought about probability is interesting. Nevertheless, our
> documented practice has been to use the earlier of the two possible dates
> for both the call no. date and fixed field date. Please see the 
> *Classification
> and Shelflisting Manual*, G140 (Dates)
> ,
> where a list of examples is given:
>
>
>
> *2012*
>
> *use* *2012*
>
> *MMX*
>
> *use* *2010*
>
> *[2011]*
>
> *use* *2011*
>
> *[2008?]*
>
> *use* *2008*
>
> *[1995 or 1996]*
>
> *use* *1995*
>
> *1980-2013*
>
> *use* *1980*
>
> *MMI-MMII*
>
> *use* *2001*
>
> *MCMXCI-2010*
>
> *use* *1991*
>
> *1980-[2013]*
>
> *use* *1980*
>
> *[1965]-2005*
>
> *use* *1965*
>
> *[1965-2005]*
>
> *use* *1965*
>
> *[not before March 1, 1800]*
>
> *use* *1800*
>
> *[not after April 23, 1700]*
>
> *use* *1700*
>
> *[between May 1,1801 and May 2, 1805]*
>
> *use* *1801*
>
> *[between 1700 and 1799]*
>
> *use* *1700z [if corporate body, use 1700] *
>
> *[between 1700 and 1799?]*
>
> *use* *1700z [if corporate body, use 1700] *
>
> *[between 1990 and 1999]*
>
> *use* *1990z [if corporate body, use 1990] *
>
> *[between 1990 and 1999?]*
>
> *use* *1990z [if corporate body, use 1990] *
>
> *[between 1950 and 2012?]*
>
> *use* *1950z [if corporate body, use 1950] *
>
>
>
> For fixed field dates, per my email from yesterday, please see example in
> *BFAS* on DtSt
> .
>
>
>
>
> Probability notwithstanding, a unified, consistent practice serves our
> users better. Please let me know if there are further questions.
>
>
>
> Thanks and kol tuv, Jasmin
>
>
>
> *From:* Heb-naco  *On Behalf Of *Cliff
> Miller via Heb-naco
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 15, 2022 10:20 AM
> *To:* Gottschalk, Haim ; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel <
> heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>; Miller, Caroline 
> *Subject:* Re: [Heb-NACO] Date Status (DtSt) and Dates in the fixed field
>
>
>
> Dear Colleagues, I’m working remotely so I cannot check any references at
> my Seminary Library desk. As I recall the single date “s” is to be used
> when the date is certain or probable. 5783 might be any of 9 months of 2023
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> I’m working remotely so I cannot check any references at my Seminary
> Library desk.
>
> As I recall the single date “s” is to be used when the date is certain or
> probable.
>
> 5783 might be any of 9 months of 2023 or any of 3 months of 2022.
>
> When the odds are 3 to 1 of the later date, I think we are justified in
> using the later date and not both years as questionable.
>
> Is not 9 months out of 12 a high probability?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Clifford Miller, speaking for myself and not for
>
> Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary
>
>
>
> *From:* Heb-naco  *On
> Behalf Of *Gottschalk, Haim via Heb-naco
> *Sent:* Monday, November 14, 2022 5:25 PM
> *To:* Miller, Caroline ; Hebrew Name Authority
> Funnel 
> *Subject:* Re: [Heb-NACO] Date Status (DtSt) and Dates in the fixed field
>
>
>
> *CAUTION: This email originated from outside JTSA. Do not click links or
> open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe. *
>
> Hi Caroline, Haim here. What I do is use the first date as THE date with
> the DtSt: s. Granted we don’t know fully if the date is 2012 or 2013, but
> this is the practice we do. The questionable date is when there is no date
> whatsoever in
>
> Hi Caroline,
>
>
>
> Haim here.
>
>
>
> What I do is use the first date as THE date with the DtSt: s. Granted we
> don’t know fully if the date is 2012 or 2013, but this is the practice we
> do. The questionable date is when there is no date whatsoever in the book
> and we have to surmise when it was published. I do use a detailed date
> (DtSt: e) when I have the month available, such as erev Rosh Hodesh Nisan,
> plus year.
>
>
>
> I hope that 

Re: [Heb-NACO] Date Status (DtSt) and Dates in the fixed field

[Miller, Caroline via Heb-naco]

Thank you all for your responses.  Although documentation states otherwise, I 
think about what Cliff says and that has merit.  How I also think about it is 
that the last digit of a Hebrew year generally corresponds to the last digit in 
the 9 months of the Gregorian year.  For example most of this year 5783 will 
happen in the Gregorian year 2023.  For anyone not trained to know the 
difference that could affect searching.

I will, of course follow the documentation.

Thanks.

Caroline

Caroline R. Miller
Team Leader, Discovery Team
UCLA Library Resource Acquisitions and Metadata Services
2400 Life Sciences Building
621 Charles E Young Drive South
Box 957230
Los Angeles, CA  90095-7230


From: Shinohara, Jasmin 
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 8:54 AM
To: Cliff Miller ; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel 
; Gottschalk, Haim ; Miller, Caroline 

Subject: RE: Date Status (DtSt) and Dates in the fixed field


Hi, Cliff,



Your thought about probability is interesting. Nevertheless, our documented 
practice has been to use the earlier of the two possible dates for both the 
call no. date and fixed field date. Please see the Classification and 
Shelflisting Manual, G140 
(Dates), where a list of examples is given:



2012

use 2012

MMX

use 2010

[2011]

use 2011

[2008?]

use 2008

[1995 or 1996]

use 1995

1980-2013

use 1980

MMI-MMII

use 2001

MCMXCI-2010

use 1991

1980-[2013]

use 1980

[1965]-2005

use 1965

[1965-2005]

use 1965

[not before March 1, 1800]

use 1800

[not after April 23, 1700]

use 1700

[between May 1,1801 and May 2, 1805]

use 1801

[between 1700 and 1799]

use 1700z [if corporate body, use 1700]

[between 1700 and 1799?]

use 1700z [if corporate body, use 1700]

[between 1990 and 1999]

use 1990z [if corporate body, use 1990]

[between 1990 and 1999?]

use 1990z [if corporate body, use 1990]

[between 1950 and 2012?]

use 1950z [if corporate body, use 1950]



For fixed field dates, per my email from yesterday, please see example in BFAS 
on 
DtSt.



Probability notwithstanding, a unified, consistent practice serves our users 
better. Please let me know if there are further questions.



Thanks and kol tuv, Jasmin



From: Heb-naco  On Behalf Of Cliff Miller via 
Heb-naco
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 10:20 AM
To: Gottschalk, Haim ; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel 
; Miller, Caroline 
Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] Date Status (DtSt) and Dates in the fixed field



Dear Colleagues, I’m working remotely so I cannot check any references at my 
Seminary Library desk. As I recall the single date “s” is to be used when the 
date is certain or probable. 5783 might be any of 9 months of 2023

Dear Colleagues,

I’m working remotely so I cannot check any references at my Seminary Library 
desk.

As I recall the single date “s” is to be used when the date is certain or 
probable.

5783 might be any of 9 months of 2023 or any of 3 months of 2022.

When the odds are 3 to 1 of the later date, I think we are justified in using 
the later date and not both years as questionable.

Is not 9 months out of 12 a high probability?

Thank you.

Clifford Miller, speaking for myself and not for

Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary



From: Heb-naco 
mailto:heb-naco-bounces+clmiller=jtsa@lists.osu.edu>>
 On Behalf Of Gottschalk, Haim via Heb-naco
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 5:25 PM
To: Miller, Caroline 
mailto:crmil...@library.ucla.edu>>; Hebrew Name 
Authority Funnel mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>>
Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] Date Status (DtSt) and Dates in the fixed field



CAUTION: This email originated from outside JTSA. Do not click links or open 
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Caroline, Haim here. What I do is use the first date as THE date with the 
DtSt: s. Granted we don’t know fully if the date is 2012 or 2013, but this is 
the practice we do. The questionable date is when there is no date whatsoever in

Hi Caroline,



Haim here.



What I do is use the first date as THE date with the DtSt: s. Granted we don’t 
know fully if the date is 2012 or 2013, but this is the practice we do. The 
questionable date is when there is no date whatsoever in the book and we have 
to surmise when it was published. I do use a detailed date (DtSt: e) when I 
have the month available, such as erev Rosh Hodesh Nisan, plus year.



I hope that this helps



Haim

Expressing my views. Ideas & opinions in this email are not intended to 
represent those of the Library of Congress or its staff.



From: Heb-naco 
mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On 
Behalf Of 

Re: [Heb-NACO] Date Status (DtSt) and Dates in the fixed field

[Galron, Joseph via Heb-naco]

I agree with Cliff and Caroline; it is also the practice of the Israeli 
libraries (National Library and others), BUT for years we did it the other way: 
I am afraid that if we change it now without changing the past records – it 
will just create a bigger chaos. Only if there is an automatic way to flip past 
records – then we could change our practice.

From: Miller, Caroline
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 12:27 PM
To: Shinohara, Jasmin ; Cliff Miller 
; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel ; 
Gottschalk, Haim 
Subject: Re: Date Status (DtSt) and Dates in the fixed field

Thank you all for your responses. Although documentation states otherwise, I 
think about what Cliff says and that has merit. How I also think about it is 
that the last digit of a Hebrew year generally corresponds to the last digit in 
the 9

Thank you all for your responses.  Although documentation states otherwise, I 
think about what Cliff says and that has merit.  How I also think about it is 
that the last digit of a Hebrew year generally corresponds to the last digit in 
the 9 months of the Gregorian year.  For example most of this year 5783 will 
happen in the Gregorian year 2023.  For anyone not trained to know the 
difference that could affect searching.

I will, of course follow the documentation.

Thanks.

Caroline

Caroline R. Miller
Team Leader, Discovery Team
UCLA Library Resource Acquisitions and Metadata Services
2400 Life Sciences Building
621 Charles E Young Drive South
Box 957230
Los Angeles, CA  90095-7230


From: Shinohara, Jasmin mailto:jsh...@pobox.upenn.edu>>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 8:54 AM
To: Cliff Miller mailto:clmil...@jtsa.edu>>; Hebrew Name 
Authority Funnel mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>>; 
Gottschalk, Haim mailto:h...@loc.gov>>; Miller, Caroline 
mailto:crmil...@library.ucla.edu>>
Subject: RE: Date Status (DtSt) and Dates in the fixed field


Hi, Cliff,



Your thought about probability is interesting. Nevertheless, our documented 
practice has been to use the earlier of the two possible dates for both the 
call no. date and fixed field date. Please see the Classification and 
Shelflisting Manual, G140 
(Dates),
 where a list of examples is given:



2012

use 2012

MMX

use 2010

[2011]

use 2011

[2008?]

use 2008

[1995 or 1996]

use 1995

1980-2013

use 1980

MMI-MMII

use 2001

MCMXCI-2010

use 1991

1980-[2013]

use 1980

[1965]-2005

use 1965

[1965-2005]

use 1965

[not before March 1, 1800]

use 1800

[not after April 23, 1700]

use 1700

[between May 1,1801 and May 2, 1805]

use 1801

[between 1700 and 1799]

use 1700z [if corporate body, use 1700]

[between 1700 and 1799?]

use 1700z [if corporate body, use 1700]

[between 1990 and 1999]

use 1990z [if corporate body, use 1990]

[between 1990 and 1999?]

use 1990z [if corporate body, use 1990]

[between 1950 and 2012?]

use 1950z [if corporate body, use 1950]



For fixed field dates, per my email from yesterday, please see example in BFAS 
on 
DtSt.



Probability notwithstanding, a unified, consistent practice serves our users 
better. Please let me know if there are further questions.



Thanks and kol tuv, Jasmin



From: Heb-naco 
mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On 
Behalf Of Cliff Miller via Heb-naco
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 10:20 AM
To: Gottschalk, Haim mailto:h...@loc.gov>>; Hebrew Name Authority 
Funnel mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>>; Miller, 
Caroline mailto:crmil...@library.ucla.edu>>
Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] Date Status (DtSt) and Dates in the fixed field



Dear Colleagues, I’m working remotely so I cannot check any references at my 
Seminary Library desk. As I recall the single date “s” is to be used when the 
date is certain or probable. 5783 might be any of 9 months of 2023

Dear Colleagues,

I’m working remotely so I cannot check any references at my Seminary Library 
desk.

As I recall the single date “s” is to be used when the date is certain or 
probable.

5783 might be any of 9 months of 2023 or any of 3 months of 2022.

When the odds are 3 to 1 of the later date, I think we are justified in using 
the later date and not both years as questionable.

Is not 9 months out of 12 a high probability?

Thank you.

Clifford Miller, speaking for myself and not for

Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary



From: Heb-naco 
mailto:heb-naco-bounces+clmiller=jtsa@lists.osu.edu>>
 On Behalf Of Gottschalk, Haim via Heb-naco
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 5:25 PM
To: Miller, Caroline 
mailto:crmil...@library.ucla.edu>>; Hebrew Name 
Authority Funnel mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>>
Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] Date Status 

Re: [Heb-NACO] Date Status (DtSt) and Dates in the fixed field

[Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco]

Hi, Cliff,

Your thought about probability is interesting. Nevertheless, our documented 
practice has been to use the earlier of the two possible dates for both the 
call no. date and fixed field date. Please see the Classification and 
Shelflisting Manual, G140 
(Dates), where a list of examples is given:

2012
use 2012
MMX
use 2010
[2011]
use 2011
[2008?]
use 2008
[1995 or 1996]
use 1995
1980-2013
use 1980
MMI-MMII
use 2001
MCMXCI-2010
use 1991
1980-[2013]
use 1980
[1965]-2005
use 1965
[1965-2005]
use 1965
[not before March 1, 1800]
use 1800
[not after April 23, 1700]
use 1700
[between May 1,1801 and May 2, 1805]
use 1801
[between 1700 and 1799]
use 1700z [if corporate body, use 1700]
[between 1700 and 1799?]
use 1700z [if corporate body, use 1700]
[between 1990 and 1999]
use 1990z [if corporate body, use 1990]
[between 1990 and 1999?]
use 1990z [if corporate body, use 1990]
[between 1950 and 2012?]
use 1950z [if corporate body, use 1950]

For fixed field dates, per my email from yesterday, please see example in BFAS 
on 
DtSt.

Probability notwithstanding, a unified, consistent practice serves our users 
better. Please let me know if there are further questions.

Thanks and kol tuv, Jasmin

From: Heb-naco  On Behalf Of Cliff Miller via 
Heb-naco
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 10:20 AM
To: Gottschalk, Haim ; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel 
; Miller, Caroline 
Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] Date Status (DtSt) and Dates in the fixed field

Dear Colleagues, I'm working remotely so I cannot check any references at my 
Seminary Library desk. As I recall the single date "s" is to be used when the 
date is certain or probable. 5783 might be any of 9 months of 2023
Dear Colleagues,
I'm working remotely so I cannot check any references at my Seminary Library 
desk.
As I recall the single date "s" is to be used when the date is certain or 
probable.
5783 might be any of 9 months of 2023 or any of 3 months of 2022.
When the odds are 3 to 1 of the later date, I think we are justified in using 
the later date and not both years as questionable.
Is not 9 months out of 12 a high probability?
Thank you.
Clifford Miller, speaking for myself and not for
Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary

From: Heb-naco 
mailto:heb-naco-bounces+clmiller=jtsa@lists.osu.edu>>
 On Behalf Of Gottschalk, Haim via Heb-naco
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 5:25 PM
To: Miller, Caroline 
mailto:crmil...@library.ucla.edu>>; Hebrew Name 
Authority Funnel mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>>
Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] Date Status (DtSt) and Dates in the fixed field


CAUTION: This email originated from outside JTSA. Do not click links or open 
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Caroline, Haim here. What I do is use the first date as THE date with the 
DtSt: s. Granted we don't know fully if the date is 2012 or 2013, but this is 
the practice we do. The questionable date is when there is no date whatsoever in
Hi Caroline,

Haim here.

What I do is use the first date as THE date with the DtSt: s. Granted we don't 
know fully if the date is 2012 or 2013, but this is the practice we do. The 
questionable date is when there is no date whatsoever in the book and we have 
to surmise when it was published. I do use a detailed date (DtSt: e) when I 
have the month available, such as erev Rosh Hodesh Nisan, plus year.

I hope that this helps

Haim
Expressing my views. Ideas & opinions in this email are not intended to 
represent those of the Library of Congress or its staff.

From: Heb-naco 
mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On 
Behalf Of Miller, Caroline via Heb-naco
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 4:49 PM
To: HEB-NACO List Posting 
(heb-n...@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu) 
mailto:heb-n...@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu>>
Subject: [Heb-NACO] Date Status (DtSt) and Dates in the fixed field

All, This may sound like a newbie question but I have never seen an official 
policy on coding the date status for materials that only have a Hebrew date. 
It's clear in RDA and the PS's how to transcribe the date in the 264. Example
All,

This may sound like a newbie question but I have never seen an official policy 
on coding the date status for materials that only have a Hebrew date.  It's 
clear in RDA and the PS's how to transcribe the date in the 264.   Example from 
the book I'm cataloging:

673 [1912 or 1913]

I have seen this coded in the fixed field as:

DtSt: s  Dates 1912 ,

DtSt: q  Dates 1912 ,   1913

Is there an official policy on MARC coding for these fixed fields?  I've done a 
little hunting on Heb-NACO and 

Re: [Heb-NACO] Date Status (DtSt) and Dates in the fixed field

[Cliff Miller via Heb-naco]

Dear Colleagues,
I'm working remotely so I cannot check any references at my Seminary Library 
desk.
As I recall the single date "s" is to be used when the date is certain or 
probable.
5783 might be any of 9 months of 2023 or any of 3 months of 2022.
When the odds are 3 to 1 of the later date, I think we are justified in using 
the later date and not both years as questionable.
Is not 9 months out of 12 a high probability?
Thank you.
Clifford Miller, speaking for myself and not for
Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary

From: Heb-naco  On Behalf Of 
Gottschalk, Haim via Heb-naco
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 5:25 PM
To: Miller, Caroline ; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel 

Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] Date Status (DtSt) and Dates in the fixed field


CAUTION: This email originated from outside JTSA. Do not click links or open 
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Caroline, Haim here. What I do is use the first date as THE date with the 
DtSt: s. Granted we don't know fully if the date is 2012 or 2013, but this is 
the practice we do. The questionable date is when there is no date whatsoever in
Hi Caroline,

Haim here.

What I do is use the first date as THE date with the DtSt: s. Granted we don't 
know fully if the date is 2012 or 2013, but this is the practice we do. The 
questionable date is when there is no date whatsoever in the book and we have 
to surmise when it was published. I do use a detailed date (DtSt: e) when I 
have the month available, such as erev Rosh Hodesh Nisan, plus year.

I hope that this helps

Haim
Expressing my views. Ideas & opinions in this email are not intended to 
represent those of the Library of Congress or its staff.

From: Heb-naco 
mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On 
Behalf Of Miller, Caroline via Heb-naco
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 4:49 PM
To: HEB-NACO List Posting 
(heb-n...@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu) 
mailto:heb-n...@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu>>
Subject: [Heb-NACO] Date Status (DtSt) and Dates in the fixed field

All, This may sound like a newbie question but I have never seen an official 
policy on coding the date status for materials that only have a Hebrew date. 
It's clear in RDA and the PS's how to transcribe the date in the 264. Example
All,

This may sound like a newbie question but I have never seen an official policy 
on coding the date status for materials that only have a Hebrew date.  It's 
clear in RDA and the PS's how to transcribe the date in the 264.   Example from 
the book I'm cataloging:

673 [1912 or 1913]

I have seen this coded in the fixed field as:

DtSt: s  Dates 1912 ,

DtSt: q  Dates 1912 ,   1913

Is there an official policy on MARC coding for these fixed fields?  I've done a 
little hunting on Heb-NACO and couldn't find any official guidance.

Thanks.

Caroline

Caroline R. Miller
Team Leader, Discovery Team
UCLA Library Resource Acquisitions and Metadata Services
2400 Life Sciences Building
621 Charles E Young Drive South
Box 957230
Los Angeles, CA  90095-7230



___
Heb-naco mailing list
Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu
https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco