If all that you have is the copyright date, then it should look like this,
right?

264 #1 $a Syracuse, New York : $b [publisher not identified]
264 #4 $c ©2009

Is it OK or incorrect to add the copyright date in the 264 bracketed as an
inferred date? So it would look like this:

264 #1 $a Syracuse, New York : $b [publisher not identified], $c [2009]
264 #4 $c ©2009

Thanks for your guidance!

Best wishes,
Julie


On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Adam L. Schiff <asch...@u.washington.edu>wrote:

> I think many catalogers feel that since the copyright date is present on
> the resource, they should record it even if they've given an inferred
> publication date in 264 _1 $c.  And some libraries have made it a local
> core element.  If it is present, I always record it.
>
> Adam Schiff
>
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^**^^^^^^^^
> Adam L. Schiff
> Principal Cataloger
> University of Washington Libraries
> Box 352900
> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
> (206) 543-8409
> (206) 685-8782 fax
> asch...@u.washington.edu
> http://faculty.washington.edu/**~aschiff<http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Julie Moore wrote:
>
>  Follow up question ... why is it that I see the majority of RDA records
>> with multiple 264s having the 264 _1 (publication) and 264 _4?
>>
>> Is this because the only date they have is a copyright date ... so they
>> put
>> the publisher info in the 264 _1 $a and $b and sometimes $c [copyright
>> date
>> -- so thus, and inferred publication date?] ... and then they are putting
>> the copyright date in the 264 _4?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Julie Moore
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Adam L. Schiff <asch...@u.washington.edu
>> >**wrote:
>>
>>  Distribution would only be a core element if the publication element was
>>> not identified.  Manufacture would only be core element if neither the
>>> publication nor the distribution element was identified.  You COULD
>>> provide
>>> everything you know but if you have publication place, publisher, and
>>> date
>>> of publication, nothing else is required.
>>>
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^****^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>> Adam L. Schiff
>>> Principal Cataloger
>>> University of Washington Libraries
>>> Box 352900
>>> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
>>> (206) 543-8409
>>> (206) 685-8782 fax
>>> asch...@u.washington.edu
>>> http://faculty.washington.edu/****~aschiff<http://faculty.washington.edu/**~aschiff>
>>> <http://faculty.**washington.edu/~aschiff<http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff>
>>> >
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~****~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Julie Moore wrote:
>>>
>>>  (My apologies for the cross-posting)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> In trying to move beyond the inexplicable inconsistent "period" issue
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Now we have with the 264 the possibilities of:
>>>> 2nd indicator entity functions of:
>>>> 0 = Production
>>>> 1 = Publication
>>>> 2 = Distribution
>>>> 3 = Manufacture Statements
>>>> 4 = Copyright notice date
>>>>
>>>> Are we required to provide all if we have all? If not, which ones are
>>>> required?
>>>>
>>>> I have noticed that in most cases, there is only a 1 (Publication) and
>>>> a 4
>>>> (copyright date).
>>>>
>>>> I would be grateful for some clarification on this.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>> Julie Moore
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Julie Renee Moore
>>>> Head of Cataloging
>>>> California State University, Fresno
>>>> julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
>>>> 559-278-5813
>>>>
>>>> ?Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
>>>> themselves.?... James Matthew Barrie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Julie Renee Moore
>> Head of Cataloging
>> California State University, Fresno
>> julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
>> 559-278-5813
>>
>> ?Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
>> themselves.?... James Matthew Barrie
>>
>>


-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Head of Cataloging
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

“Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
themselves.”... James Matthew Barrie

Reply via email to