It strikes me that the whole idea of including the date in the u.t. was to alert the patron (remember him/her?) to the edition or "printing" if you will, of the work desired.
Or is RDA forgetting about the goals of FRBR (i.e. updates of Cutter's goals)? On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Adger Williams <awilli...@colgate.edu>wrote: > I notice with the flood of Phase 2 authority records that there are a > number of preferred access points (used to be uniform titles) of the form > Works. Selections. English. date, where the date does not conform to the > date in my catalog for the particular item (embodying a work). > > I have been wondering how to handle these. > > 1. > 240 Works Selections English 1993 > 245 Antonio Gramsci : pre-prison writings > 260 |c1994 > where the 240 matches the authority record > > or > 2. > 240 Works. Selections. English. 1994 > 245 Antonio Gramsci : pre-prison writings > 260 |c1994 > where I have to create a new authority record (yuck) or edit the one sent > from LC/NACO (yucker) or just leave the mismatch as it is (yuckest) > > I have seen enough dates in authority records that came from CIP or eCIP > and are not accurate when compared to the piece in hand to have very little > doubt where the root of the problem is. > The long term solution is to change over to unchanging numeric identifiers > with varying forms of display (as we all know), but before we reach > Nirvana, what do we do? > > Any thoughts? > > > -- > Adger Williams > Colgate University Library > 315-228-7310 > awilli...@colgate.edu > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
