Not at all a stupid question. To me, it's getting down to the different needs of databases and copy cataloging procedures.
I understand the need to differentiate when you are extrapolating the
publication year from the copyright date (given absence of a pub. year).
But in real world copy cataloging with diminishing numbers of people to
check copy, MY question comes down to:
given the same year for both copyright and publication, how important it is
to differentiate these pieces of data and edit copy to reflect that
difference.
The majority of records with "DLC" in a the 040 (which I realize a number of
agencies have weighed in on) I'm seeing actually appear to be ignoring
copyright when it duplicates the pub year, hence my question for what to do
when it is noted so meticulously.
I have most often seen this format of late when I have a book that lists
both publication year & the copyright date separately on the same page &
they are both 2012:
264 _1 New York : |b The Penguin Press, |c 2012.
Copyright as not core is ignored.
I'm also seeing
260 __ New York : |b The Penguin Press, |c 2012, c2012.
With a dtst s & a single 2012.
And then again there is the form that sparked my original question.
260 Stanford, California : |b Stanford University Press, |c [2012],
©2012.
With the dtst t and 2012 twice in the dates 008.
Do we advise copy catalogers to edit to 264 or let all variations pass if
essentially "correct" for when they were cataloged (as best they can tell!)
I had assumed we would not be editing 260s to 264 in copy cat work. In
original work we are indeed using 264s per the current PCC guidelines.
Perhaps since this question is really looking more at local process in copy
cataloging than at precise original cataloging rules, it would be more
appropriately put to AUTOCAT.
//SIGNED//
Patricia Fogler
Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC)
Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center
DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135
-----Original Message-----
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 2:23 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
So what is the purpose of AACR2 rule requiring a difference between
copyright and publication dates? Is it a stupid question?
Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Snow, Karen <ks...@dom.edu> wrote:
Patricia Folger wrote:
"The former coding in OCLC looks like "overkill" -- How
useful/necessary/correct is it to code this dtst to other than s & have
duplicate dates in the 008 date area?"
I'm not sure I understand the problem here. Publication dates and
copyright dates are not the same, even if they share the same year. They
are discreet data elements. That is why 264_1 $c and 264_4 $c were created
in the first place, to better distinguish the dates and make them more
machine-actionable.
Warm regards,
Karen Snow, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Graduate School of Library & Information Science
Dominican University
7900 West Division Street
River Forest, IL 60305
ks...@dom.edu
708-524-6077 (office)
708-524-6657 (fax)
--
Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D.
Cataloger -- CMC
Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
6725 Goshen Road
Edwardsville, IL 62025
618.656.3216x409
618.656.9401Fax
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
