Re: [Heb-NACO] Date Status (DtSt) and Dates in the fixed field
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) > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/G140.pdf__;!!KGKeukY!wEsjQul0DQuZBL-0qOpDxMcEWkZu5YFa_eLlHo6OsaIxAe3j1lxCKGIp_X1Eh7_EuNU6yXeInF6r0BGF2-W0uFdLdIw$>, > where a list of examples is given: > > > > *2012* > > *use* *2012* > > *MMX* > > *use* *2010* > > *[2011]* > > *use* *2011* > > *[2008?]* > > *use* *2008* > > *[1995 or 1996]* > > *use* *1995* > > *1980-2013* > > *use* *1980* > > *MMI-MMII* > > *use* *2001* > > *MCMXCI-2010* > > *use* *1991* > > *1980-[2013]* > > *use* *1980* > > *[1965]-2005* > > *use* *1965* > > *[1965-2005]* > > *use* *1965* > > *[not before March 1, 1800]* > > *use* *1800* > > *[not after April 23, 1700]* > > *use* *1700* > > *[between May 1,1801 and May 2, 1805]* > > *use* *1801* > > *[between 1700 and 1799]* > > *use* *1700z [if corporate body, use 1700] * > > *[between 1700 and 1799?]* > > *use* *1700z [if corporate body, use 1700] * > > *[between 1990 and 1999]* > > *use* *1990z [if corporate body, use 1990] * > > *[between 1990 and 1999?]* > > *use* *1990z [if corporate body, use 1990] * > > *[between 1950 and 2012?]* > > *use* *1950z [if corporate body, use 1950] * > > > > For fixed field dates, per my email from yesterday, please see example in > *BFAS* on DtSt > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/fixedfield/dtst.html__;!!KGKeukY!wEsjQul0DQuZBL-0qOpDxMcEWkZu5YFa_eLlHo6OsaIxAe3j1lxCKGIp_X1Eh7_EuNU6yXeInF6r0BGF2-W0yLj5ZR4$>. > > > > > 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 practi
Re: [Heb-NACO] 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 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)<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/G140.pdf__;!!KGKeukY!0wSX-9wV5J-jP-5F6tEOvXdwYQ5v2tqH2Poe5PQv_4tkeDKWCgNdIXRRdk-jeoUBnRbOXoRFKHya8bodVOsa3DS9192h-Q$ >, 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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/fixedfield/dtst.html__;!!KGKeukY!0wSX-9wV5J-jP-5F6tEOvXdwYQ5v2tqH2Poe5PQv_4tkeDKWCgNdIXRRdk-jeoUBnRbOXoRFKHya8bodVOsa3DSAgeKShQ$ >. 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-
Re: [Heb-NACO] Date Status (DtSt) and Dates in the fixed field
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)<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/G140.pdf__;!!KGKeukY!0wSX-9wV5J-jP-5F6tEOvXdwYQ5v2tqH2Poe5PQv_4tkeDKWCgNdIXRRdk-jeoUBnRbOXoRFKHya8bodVOsa3DS9192h-Q$>, where a list of examples is given: 2012 use 2012 MMX use 2010 [2011] use 2011 [2008?] use 2008 [1995 or 1996] use 1995 1980-2013 use 1980 MMI-MMII use 2001 MCMXCI-2010 use 1991 1980-[2013] use 1980 [1965]-2005 use 1965 [1965-2005] use 1965 [not before March 1, 1800] use 1800 [not after April 23, 1700] use 1700 [between May 1,1801 and May 2, 1805] use 1801 [between 1700 and 1799] use 1700z [if corporate body, use 1700] [between 1700 and 1799?] use 1700z [if corporate body, use 1700] [between 1990 and 1999] use 1990z [if corporate body, use 1990] [between 1990 and 1999?] use 1990z [if corporate body, use 1990] [between 1950 and 2012?] use 1950z [if corporate body, use 1950] For fixed field dates, per my email from yesterday, please see example in BFAS on DtSt<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/fixedfield/dtst.html__;!!KGKeukY!0wSX-9wV5J-jP-5F6tEOvXdwYQ5v2tqH2Poe5PQv_4tkeDKWCgNdIXRRdk-jeoUBnRbOXoRFKHya8bodVOsa3DSAgeKShQ$>. 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 Author
Re: [Heb-NACO] 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)<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/G140.pdf__;!!KGKeukY!wEsjQul0DQuZBL-0qOpDxMcEWkZu5YFa_eLlHo6OsaIxAe3j1lxCKGIp_X1Eh7_EuNU6yXeInF6r0BGF2-W0uFdLdIw$ >, 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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/fixedfield/dtst.html__;!!KGKeukY!wEsjQul0DQuZBL-0qOpDxMcEWkZu5YFa_eLlHo6OsaIxAe3j1lxCKGIp_X1Eh7_EuNU6yXeInF6r0BGF2-W0yLj5ZR4$ >. 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>) 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
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 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>) 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
Re: [Heb-NACO] Date Status (DtSt) and Dates in the fixed field
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 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) 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
Re: [Heb-NACO] Date Status (DtSt) and Dates in the fixed field
Hi, Caroline, thank you for asking! There may be other sources of documentation, but the first one I could find is found in Bib Formats and Standards (BFAS), under DtSt, Type of Date/Publication Status<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/fixedfield/dtst.html__;!!KGKeukY!yYMgC85P8m718YpM-qQCTPdNepzpgFz8t7XQINrStgURkQQDuO8hSDjJUfziLgfuosaBlxYrY7M2ti_JfWmDZPCdmqc$ >. There, included as the last of the examples for the code s, is the example DtSt s Dates 1983,[blank character][blank character][blank character][blank character] 264 _ 1 Yerushalayim : ǂb E. Fisher, ǂc 744 [1983 or 1984] [Non-Gregorian dates with no single Gregorian equivalent] Thus, records with DtSt code q and the two years in Date 1 and Date 2 are incorrectly coded. I’ll let you know if I find other documentation for this practice. In the meantime, hope this helps. Kol tuv, Jasmin From: Heb-naco 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) 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
[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 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