My vote would be for the 1st option, because it shows that the copyright date is 2014. [2014] by itself could be confusing to a catalog user. My 2 cents. Thanks.
Michele Estep Cataloging and Metadata Librarian Savannah College of Art and Design® Jen Library 201 E. Broughton St. Savannah, GA 31401 T: 912.525.4659 - Fax: 912.525.4715 mes...@scad.edu - www.scad.edu SCAD - The University for Creative Careers® NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or by electronic mail and then delete this message and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kathie Goldfarb" <kgoldf...@com.edu> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 9:48:11 AM Subject: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date The book I have in hand lists a copyright date of 2014. Should the 264 be: 264 1 ...$c [2013] 264 4 4a @2014 Or 264 1 $c [2014] No 264 4 I am leaning toward the second, since many libraries may receive this book in 2014, and the first option might be confusing, since they would not know for a fact that some were distributed in 2013. Comments? Thanks kathie Kathleen Goldfarb Technical Services Librarian College of the Mainland Texas City, TX 77539 409 933 8202 Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email.
