If the date of publication and copyright date are the same and both are
recorded, then it is correct to code the Date type as "t" and give both
dates in the Dates fixed field. The LC-PCC Policy Statement for 2.8.6.6
shows just such an example:
Title page verso
2009
Item received in
2008
Date of publication
not given
Transcription
264 #1 $a $b ... $c [2009]
264 #4 $c 2009
008/06 Type of date
t
008/07-10
2009
008/11-14
2009
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
I would point out that this is not what I'm seeing in OCLC.
Most RDA records now seem to have Date status set to "t" (Publication date and
copyright date) and both date fields filled out, accordingly. Whether there is a
difference between pub. date and copyright date, or not.
--Ben
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137
-----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: Monday, October 22, 2012 2:56 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates
robert Maxwell said:
,,, how to code the fixed fields in a MARC record if you do choose to
record the element that way while recording a copyright date
One should NEVER do that. It is cruel and unusual publishment for patrons.
If 264 1 $c and 264 4 $c are the same:
008/06 = s, 008/07-10 = 2005
If 264 1 $c and 264 4 $c differ:
008/06 = t, 008/07-10 = 2006, 008/11-14 = 2005
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
