Bob ... Yes, it was the [197-?] scenario that I was thinking of, where there is nothing that tells you any kind of a date ... but you have the feeling that it was probably made in the 70s ... possibly just based on your own experience. I've been searching all over the place in RDA trying to find that ... so it's good to know that it simply is not there. As you say, one can always use the [between 1970 and 1979?] approach.
Thanks, Julie On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Robert Maxwell <robert_maxw...@byu.edu>wrote: > You have to do something like “[between 2000 and 2010?]” (RDA 1.9.2.4) > or “[between 2000 and 2010]” (RDA 1.9.2.5). The first would be if you think > it’s some time between the two dates but aren’t sure—it might be earlier or > later; the second would be if you know it’s some time between the two dates > but don’t know the exact year. AACR2 formulations such as “18—“ or “197-“ > didn’t find their way into RDA.**** > > ** ** > > Bob**** > > ** ** > > Robert L. Maxwell > Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept. > 6728 Harold B. Lee Library > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > (801)422-5568 > > "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves > to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Julie Moore > *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 7:24 PM > > *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?**** > > ** ** > > Bob, > > Oh yes ... duh :-) ... I forgot the $c [date of publication not > identified]! **** > > ** ** > > > Are we still allowed to take a stab at the date if it's unknown ... for > example, if there is absolutely no date on the item anywhere, but you're > pretty sure it was published in this decade, is it OK to put $c [201?] in > the 264 _1? (I catalog a lot of non-print materials ... and many have no > date.) ... or is this where I just throw up my hands and evoke: $c [date > of publication not identified]**** > > ** ** > > Thanks for the guidance!**** > > Cheers, > Julie Moore**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Robert Maxwell <robert_maxw...@byu.edu> > wrote:**** > > Julie,**** > > **** > > In addition to what Adam said, in current practice we are required to > include subfields $a, $b, and $c in 264 _1 even if we’ve included “core if” > elements later on, so your first example should read:**** > > **** > > 264 #1 $a Syracuse, New York : $b [publisher not identified], $c [date of > publication not identified] > 264 #4 $c ©2009**** > > **** > > But as Adam noted, it’s better to try to supply a date (as in your second > example, which is fine). And actually, if you think about it, we probably > never need to record “date of publication not identified” for a published > item even if we have no evidence whatsoever about the date of publication, > because we do know one thing: it was published before it got to us for > cataloging, so you can always record, if nothing else, … $c [not after June > 13, 2013]**** > > **** > > (I know, I know, there’s the case where a publisher claims to have > published something in 2014 and we receive it in 2013, proving that things > sometimes get “published” after we get them, but let’s deal with that > problem only if the publisher has explicitly put a future publication date > on the piece—this has been extensively discussed before in this forum, I > believe.)**** > > **** > > Actually, I now have a question for the collective wisdom of the list. How > do you code the MARC fixed date fields if you have a “not before” or a “not > after” date of publication? I don’t see any explanation of this situation > in the documentation for 008/06 – 008/14. I could possibly see using “q” > and the date + 9999 for a “not before” date, but what about a “not after” > date? **** > > **** > > Bob**** > > **** > > Robert L. Maxwell > Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept. > 6728 Harold B. Lee Library > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > (801)422-5568 > > "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves > to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.**** > > **** > > *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Julie Moore > *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 6:27 PM**** > > > *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?**** > > **** > > 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 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > 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> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~**** > > > > > 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**** > > > > > -- **** > > 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
