Gene,
As stated several times on various lists, the two dates are
different RDA elements. In your library if you have a Date of
publication or in its absence a Date of distribution, you can
ignore the Copyright date.
Judy
________________________________________
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg
[gf...@cst.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 2:02 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Just a question here. What is the rationale in RDA for including
both dates if they are the same?
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Kuhagen, Judith
<j...@loc.gov<mailto:j...@loc.gov>> wrote:
As Kathy noted, there will be a MARBI proposal about copyright date
for the June 2011 ALA Annual Conference. That topic and others
related to the 260 field were presented as discussion paper topics
at the January 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting. The other 260 topics
will be covered by a MARBI proposal for June; it will include 008
information as well.
Judy Kuhagen
Policy and Standards Division
Library of Congress
Washington, D.C.
________________________________________
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>]
On Behalf Of Kathy Glennan
[kglen...@umd.edu<mailto:kglen...@umd.edu>]
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 6:34 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Expect to see a MARBI Proposal for ALA Annual in New Orleans that
proposes specific subfields for copyright and phonogram dates.
I would code the separate elements of publication date and
copyright date in the fixed field as they appear in OCLC
#670190952. MARC already enables us to separately encode
publication date and copyright date in the fixed fields. Since
these are separate elements, I can see no reason not to record both
dates in the fixed fields, even if their character strings are
identical.
Kathy Glennan
Head, Special Resources Cataloging / Music Cataloger
University of Maryland
kglen...@umd.edu<mailto:kglen...@umd.edu>
-----Original Message-----
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>]
On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 2:32 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Jay Shorten said on Autocat:
OCLC 670190952 (no LC number), has 260c 2010, (c)2010. Is it really
necessary to code this in the fixed fields as t 2010 2010? Wouldn't s
2010 be better?
In RDA publication date is a core element, but copyright date is not.
I expect to see more [2011], (c)2011 when the item has only
copyright date. A subfield code is needed for copyright date.
I would code 008 s with a single date.
Also, shouldn't the 300 end in a period?
Under RDA ISBD practice, only when a 490 follows. We are still
using the ISBD fiction that the ending mark of punctuation
*introduces* the next field. As OPAC displays more and more
deconstruct the ISBD display, it is time to abandon this fiction,
and standardize ending punctuation of RDA elements and MARC fields.
Field 246 needs one for example, to agree with 730/740, and to
have a period on notes created by 246.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca<mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca>)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing
HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/<http://www.slc.bc.ca/>
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu<mailto:gf...@cst.edu>
