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.




Reply via email to