I am shocked. I thought (as Patricia said) that this was exactly the situation the new rules were designed for.
Yours, a chastened, John Williams Technical Services Librarian Robert H. Evans Library Bologna, Italy >-----Original Message----- >From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access >[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Fritz >Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:33 PM >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 > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access >[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jenny Wright >Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 9:52 AM > >My understanding is that if the best information you have for a >publication date is the copyright date, then the appropriate 264s would >be: >264 #1 $c [2014] >264 #4 $c (c)2014 > >But if you are supplying the publication date and believe 2013 would be >more accurate, then >264 #1 $c [2013] >264 #4 $c (c)2014 > >would be perfectly correct, too. >Regards > >-----Original Message----- >From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access >[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Goldfarb, Kathie >Sent: 28 March 2013 13:48 >The book I have in hand lists a copyright date of 2014. > >Should the 264 be: > >264 1 ...$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.
