I recommend waiting to see the new MARBI Proposal on encoding copyright date before critiquing the possible content. MARBI Discussion Paper 2011-DP01 explored several options for encoding this information; the final Proposal will take into account the various e-mail and in-person discussions of that paper.
And no, we cannot reuse 260 $d for copyright date; reusing subfields or fields almost never happens due to issues with legacy data. I still see pre-AACR2 OCLC master records with 260 $d, used correctly. It's far better to define a new field or subfield than to ask systems to parse content within a subfield to determine what kind of data is recorded there. Kathy Glennan Head, Special Resources Cataloging / Music Cataloger University of Maryland kglen...@umd.edu -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:31 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question Judith Kuhagen said: >As Kathy noted, there will be a MARBI proposal about copyright date for >the June 2011 ALA Annual Conference. But that proposed new subfield for copyright year is included in a *very* complex coding scheme proposed for 260. Couldn't we just add one new subfield for copyright, either displayed out of order, or reuse $d, thus not over complicating it? It's been decades since $d has been used for plate or publisher number, and the copyright sign would distinguish copyright years from that earlier use. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
