I thought one of the best things about dates in RDA is that I can record the copyright date as 2013 but the date of publication as [2012]. I know that if we had received the book a month later, it wouldn’t be an issue and really isn’t a big one anyway, but it’s nice to separate those dates. Pat
Patricia Sayre-McCoy Head, Law Cataloging and Serials D’Angelo Law Library University of Chicago 773-702-9620 p...@uchicago.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 1:48 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] question about dates in 264 fields I’d say you never in fact need to use the “nuclear option” “date of publication not identified” because you at least know that by the time a published resource hits your desk it has been published, so you can always use “[not after January 11, 2013]” (see RDA 1.9.2.5).* However the option of not identifying the date of publication is available and may be appropriate in some circumstances, but if you do that you do need to go on and record a distribution, copyright, or manufacture date if one of those is available. *Note: I am deliberately ignoring the necessary fiction we employ at the end of the year when a resource arrives with the next year’s publication date or copyright date on it. I agree with the PCC-LCPS (2.8.6.6) that instructs LC and PCC catalogers to supply (or record) the date corresponding to the date recorded on the resource, e.g. I get a book in 2012 with a publication or copyright date of 2013, I record or supply 2013, not 2012, even though I know in my heart of hearts that the resource was actually on the market before 2013. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian Genre/Form Authorities Librarian 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 10:49 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] question about dates in 264 fields During the test period, LC defined the copyright date as core, but the copyright date was “de-cored” after the test evaluation. In RDA 2.8.6.6: “If the date of publication is not identified in the single-part resource, supply the date or approximate date of publication. Apply the instructions on supplied dates given under 1.9.2<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp1&target=rda1-1054#rda1-1054>. If an approximate date of publication for a single-part resource cannot reasonably be determined, record date of publication not identified.” My reasoning is that an approximate or supplied date is identification. Approximate or supplied date in AACR2 MARC: 260 … $c c2013. (NOT [2013], c2013) Approximate or supplied date derived from the copyright date in RDA MARC during the test period (before 264 was available): 260 … $c [2013], copyright 2013. Approximate or supplied date derived from the copyright date in RDA MARC after the 264 was available, if the copyright date was still core: 264 _1 … $c [2013] 264 _4 … $c copyright 2013 Approximate or supplied date derived from the copyright date in RDA MARC after the 264 was available, but the [addition of the] copyright date is not core: 264 _1 … $c [2013], or, optionally, 264 _1 … $c [2013] 264 _4 … $c copyright 2013 This seems to be borne out by the examples in LC PCC LCPS 2.8.6.6. Since RDA offers so many ways to provide an approximate or supplied date of publication, the use of [date of publication not identified] is something of a nuclear option. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation Catalog & Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu<mailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 11:35 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] question about dates in 264 fields I do not know if LC PCC PS is interpreted correctly. However, RDA 2.8.6.6 says "If the date of publication is not identified in a resource... record the copyright date, and RDA 2.11 says "copyright date is a core element if...neither the date of publication ... is identified. I tend to think in this case, copyright date, being the only date identified from the resource, is perhaps not optional? Jack Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville >>> Deborah Fritz <debo...@marcofquality.com<mailto:debo...@marcofquality.com>> >>> 1/11/2013 10:49 AM >>> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA]<mailto:[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA]> On Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 10:39 AM [SA]<if you have a bracketed date in 264 _1 based on the copyright date, the 264 _4 is optional, if I’m interpreting LC PCC PS correctly> [DF:] Yes, if you use the copyright date to supply the date in 264_1, then adding the copyright date is optional, but I think it is a good thing to add it, as long as the copyright date is straightforward. Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. debo...@marcofquality.com<mailto:debo...@marcofquality.com> www.marcofquality.com<http://www.marcofquality.com> ________________________________ Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
