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 <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 <h...@loc.gov>; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel < > heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>; Miller, Caroline <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 <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 <crmil...@library.ucla.edu>; Hebrew Name Authority > Funnel <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 <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) < > 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 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.google.com/maps/search/621*Charles*E*Young*Drive*South?entry=gmail&source=g__;KysrKys!!KGKeukY!zObgRRzbW30cSAg3E_dFQxgPDjQaX5IUHJI3SOFu0jrbMIhwjWMRYRo_FUaiXGMW72yKkWv0CT0io_cGp0L04StWow$ > > > > 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 mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
