On 3/28/2013 8:07 AM, Will Evans <ev...@bostonathenaeum.org> wrote: > 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
I'm puzzled by this approach, which seems to second-guess the publisher's intent. Unless there's something we haven't been told, I don't get the idea that the resource itself makes any statement about having been published in 2013. If a cataloger first encountered this item in 2014+, they'd have no reason to believe it was published in anything other than 2014, because that's the date printed on the thing itself, yes? (I know there are reverse cases where a later ed. such as trade pbk. does not actually state its publication date and simply retains the copyright of the first hc ed., resulting in situations like [2002], c2001 in AACR2. But in that case other information supports the choice of supplied date, I think.) Rare books might be different, and I am no RDA guru, but my feeling would be to go with what Deborah recommended. -- Lisa Hatt Cataloging De Anza College Library 408-864-8459
