Ian Fairclough <ifairclough43...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I have been wondering how and why this situation concerning publication in > a year yet to come arose, and why LCPCCPS was written the way it is. > Perhaps the situation developed from an attempt in LCPCCPS to make RDA > easier to use while fulfilling the instruction to supply a missing > publication date, something not required in AACR2 nor LCRI, as in the > following. > > Here are instructions from AACR2: 1.4F6: "If the dates of publication, > distribution, etc., are unknown, give the copyright date or, in its > absence, the date of manufacture (indicated as such) in its place." LCRI > 1.4F6 says "If the item contains only a copyright date, give the copyright > date." > > The corresponding instruction in RDA 2.8.6.6: "If the date of publication > is not identified in the single-part resource, supply the date or > approximate date of publication. " LCPCCPS 2.8.6.6 has "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." >
To fill out the quotations in this thread, there are also the following in the LCRI: LCRI 1.4F1: "Later Publication Dates: ... If a U.S. trade publication has a publication date that is in the year following the year in which the publication is received, accept the later publication date as the date of the edition being cataloged. For example, if '2002' appears as the publication date on a publication received in 2001, give '2002' as the publication date." LCRI 1.4F6: "Later Copyright Dates: ... If a U.S. trade publication lacking a publication date has a copyright date that is in the year following the year in which the publication is received, accept the later copyright date as a substitute for the publication date. For example, if '©2002' appears on a publication received in 2001, give 'c2002' as the publication date." -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex <http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>
