Rules or no rules, shouldn't the record reflect the reality of the situation?!
264#1 $c [2013] 264#4 $c (c) 2014 500 Publication received by cataloging agency in 2013. $ MBAt ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Will Evans Chief Rare Materials Catalog Librarian Library of the Boston Athenaeum 10 1/2 Beacon Street Boston, MA 02108 Tel: 617-227-0270 ext. 224 Fax: 617-227-5266 www.bostonathenaeum.org -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Snow, Karen Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 10:43 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date Shouldn't there be a question mark inserted as well since the publication date is probable, but unknown? (rules 1.9.2.3 and 2.8.6.6) 264 #1 $c [2014?] 264 #4 $c (c)2014 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) ________________________________________ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Deborah Fritz [debo...@marcofquality.com] Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 9:32 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date However, there is an LC PCC PS for 2.8.6.6 that says "2. If the copyright date is for the year following the year in which the publication is received, supply a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright date." And this is a carryover from an LCRI that said, basically, the same thing. So, I would recommend: 264 #1 $c [2014] 264 #4 $c (c)2014 Adding the Copyright Date in this case, would help to explain the choice of the supplied Date of Publication Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. debo...@marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.com
