Yikes!!! On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Robert Maxwell <robert_maxw...@byu.edu>wrote:
> 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], ©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 > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu
