Bottom line:
AACR2 allows copyright date to stand in for date of publication, without
needing to supply a separate date of publication. For example: London : Boosey
& Hawkes, c1975.
RDA requires a date of publication as a core element. If all you have is a
copyright date on the publication, you will have a choice about how to approach
supplying the date of publication.
One option is to supply a date, possibly based on the copyright
date. For example: London : Boosey & Hawkes, [1975]. In this case, since the
copyright date *is* known, it could also be supplied.
The other option is to let the copyright date serve as the only
identifying date, making no assumptions about the date of publication or
distribution. For example: London : Boosey & Hawkes, [date of publication not
identified], [date of distribution not identified], (c)1975.
For obvious reasons, I suspect most catalogers will opt for supplying a
publication date rather than using the two bracketed "... not identified"
statements. Application profiles, best practices guidelines, and/or LCPS will
likely provide further guidance about whether or not to record the specific
copyright date in this type of situation.
Kathy Glennan
Head, Special Resources Cataloging / Music Cataloger
University of Maryland
kglen...@umd.edu
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:50 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Maybe I have misunderstood AACR2 all this time, but I was under the impression
that if you had a publication date and it was the same as the copyright date,
you did not need to use the copyright date. Is/Was that the case? And if so,
if I am reading the comments about RDA correctly, it still is the case. Right?
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Adam L. Schiff
<asch...@u.washington.edu<mailto:asch...@u.washington.edu>> wrote:
And to further reiterate, they are different RDA elements because they are in
fact different things. Copyright date is a legal date that reflects the year
in which an issue is registered for copyright protection. It is not the same
thing as a publication date.
In AACR2 we were conveniently allowed to substitute copyright date for a
publication date. In RDA we have two separately defined elements, and we must
always record a publication date, an estimation/guess of the publication date,
or the phrase "[date of publication not identified]". In RDA, if you've
recorded a publications date or an estimation/guess, then you are not required
to record the copyright date as well (although you may do so, and the LC Policy
Statement for the testing period said to always give it if it is on a
resource). In RDA, copyright date is only a required element if the neither
the date of publication nor date of distribution is identified.
Adam
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu<mailto:asch...@u.washington.edu>
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Kuhagen, Judith wrote:
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<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>] On Behalf
Of Gene Fieg [gf...@cst.edu<mailto:gf...@cst.edu>]
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 2:02 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
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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><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><mailto: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><mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca<mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca>>)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing
HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/<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><mailto:gf...@cst.edu<mailto:gf...@cst.edu>>
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu<mailto:gf...@cst.edu>
