I have wondered whether originally the approach of separating publication date and copyright date didn't arise, in part, at least, from this phenomenon of having books published earlier than the copyright date indicates. I am sympathetic to the concern that a cataloger with the book in hand in 2013, copyrighted 2013, might wonder why the cataloging record available has 2012 in the 264. However, I wonder if the 588 note, or a 500 note, could not be used, e.g., "Item received for cataloging March 10, 2012," thus indicating that the book was in fact available in 2012.
Michael S. Borries CUNY Central Cataloging 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu Phone: (646) 312-1687 ________________________________________ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Patricia Sayre-McCoy [p...@uchicago.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:01 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date But what about the cataloger who received the book in 2013? And the patron who used it last week but it can't be this book because this book hasn't been published yet? I makes less sense to pretend that the book wasn't published for 8 months than to include a bracked publication date and make it clear when the book was actually available. Pat Patricia Sayre-McCoy Head, Law Cataloging and Serials D'Angelo Law Library University of Chicago 773-702-9620 p...@uchicago.edu -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Lisa Hatt Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:45 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date 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
