Mark wrote: "As someone who has worked in institutions that followed the LCRIs, I've considered the expanded dates appearing on technical reports and other kinds of reports to be release dates rather than dates of publication. Hence the brackets in the 260 $c date."
LCRI 2.7B9 was very useful for standardizing the treatment of publication/release dates for technical reports, in the past, but, as Mark points out, it did not make it over as an LC PCC PS. It is also very interesting that Mark indicates that there *was*, at one point, an LC PS for 2.8.6.1 (Scope for Date of Publication) that continued the practice of using a date of release to supply a publication date, but that LC PS also did not survive as an LC PCC PS. To me, that suggests that we are now to take the Scope instruction at 2.8.6.1 as stated: "A date of publication is a date associated with the publication, release, or issuing of a resource". This would then explain why 2.8.6.3 shows that we can find ourselves entering a month and year as data for this element, as in the example "May 2000", giving the release date as it is given on the resource. Which means that if we also have a later or earlier release of the report, each release will be given a new manifestation record to reflect the release date. So, instead of: 260 $c [2000] 500 $a "Issued May 2000." We now have: 264 #1 ..., $c May 2000. I'm checking with the lchelp4...@loc.gov folks about this, to see what they have to say, since they obviously pondered the question at one point. Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. <mailto:debo...@marcofquality.com> debo...@marcofquality.com <http://www.marcofquality.com> www.marcofquality.com From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of M. E. Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 2:45 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Technical report dates and publication Arthur Liu <art....@gmail.com> wrote: I am unsure how to handle dates of publication for technical reports. Generally, technical reports bear a date in the format "Month Year" (e.g. December 2012) on the cover and/or technical report documentation page. (Many reports do not have a title page.) On the report, this bit of info is often labeled "Report Date." In the past, most records I've seen handle this by putting the year in square brackets in the 260$c. I'm not sure if the square brackets were meant to indicate that the year was taken from an outside source (the prescribed sources for the publication area in AACR2 2.0B2 included "other preliminaries") or if it was to indicate that the month was not included. AACR2 1.4F1 specifically says publication date means year. The month and year is often transcribed into a 500 instead. In RDA however, one of the examples in 2.8.6.3 is "May 2000". I don't see any rule specifying year only. On the other hand, I also don't see any examples on the OCLC MARC website of the 264$c having a month, nor on the OCLC or MARC websites of the 260$c having a month. But does the example in 2.8.6.3 mean I can start putting a Month YYYY into the 264$c ? I don't catalog many technical reports, so I can only make a couple of points. First, you're correct that RDA does not limit dates of publication, etc., to only years, as AACR2 does. And second, there's a now-moribund LC policy statement for 2.8.6.1 that read: "Do not consider a date of release or transmittal to be a publication date. If a publication date is not available for a resource, the date of release or transmittal may be sondered with other information (e.g., date of distribution, date of manufacture, copyright date) to supply a publication date. Record the date of release or transmittal in a note if it helps to identify the resource (see RDA 2.20.7)." This is a follow-up to LCRI 2.7B9: When a publication has a date of release or transmittal in a prominent position, include it in the bibliographic description. Typically these special dates consist of month or month and day as well as year and appear on the title page or cover. If the date is in a phrase that is being recorded as an edition statement, so record it. If an edition statement is not appropriate, quote the date in a note, including with it any associated words. "May 1979" "May 1, 1979" "Issued May 1979" Note that a date of release or transmittal is not a publication date. If the publication lacks a copyright date or a date of manufacture (cf. LCRI 1.4F6), the publication date may be inferred from the date of release or transmittal. Then, give the inference in brackets in the publication, distribution, etc., area and follow the above instructions for the date of release or transmittal. In case of doubt as to the character of the date, treat it as a date of release or transmittal. As someone who has worked in institutions that followed the LCRIs, I've considered the expanded dates appearing on technical reports and other kinds of reports to be release dates rather than dates of publication. Hence the brackets in the 260 $c date. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex <http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>
