This is because the date of publication element (2.8.6) is core, i.e. that element must be recorded, even if only with a supplied date (or as a last resort "date of publication not identified"). Once the date of publication element has been recorded nothing else is required, unless the element is supplied as "[date of publication not identified]". In that case the date of manufacture element becomes core (2.10.6); if date of manufacture cannot be identified, then copyright date becomes core (2.11).
When you see something like "[2010], (c)2010" this is going beyond RDA core. Only "[2010]" is required in RDA. On the other hand, this element (date of publication) is required, so it is not correct in RDA to skip it and just give the copyright date. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept. 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 3:28 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Dates in rda records After reading chapter 2 (again) it seems that the copyright date is used when the publication date is absent. However, when I look at OCLC *682881065, I see [2010], c2010. The publication date is nowhere in the book (the preface is signed 2010). So why not, according to RDA, only use the copyright date? -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu<mailto:gf...@cst.edu>
