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? ------------------------------------------------------------------ Many of the early records created after field 264 was first authorized had paired instances of field 264, when the date of publication was not specified in the item in hand but a copyright date was present. This was part of the evolution of guidance by LC and PCC from the release of RDA, through the test period, and to the beginning of implementation of changes in MARC as a result of lessons learned during the test period.
My institution doesn't participate in PCC (too few records produced in a year), but if I properly recall things from over a year ago, there was a tendency towards including as much as possible during the test, in order to push the envelope. Also, <soapbox> RDA itself is somewhat unclear regarding "[date] not identified" -- in one place it is very clearly addressing "not identified in the resource" and later on it is less specific, allowing interpretation of "not identified in the record." If one opts to assume the "resource" language carries forward, then the paired instances of field 264 is the only correct application of the rules. As Robert Maxwell writes, there are catalogers that feel this is best practice, regardless of assumptions and applications, as it provides the opportunity to record the element present in the resource, upon which one is inferring the supplied date of publication. <fingerwagging>In the face of overwhelming whining</fingerwagging> about seeing "264 1 ... $c [2013] // 264 4 $c (c)2013" in records (to say nothing of all the extra typing, and debates about fixed field coding), the looser interpretation was incorporated into the LC-PCC Policy Statement, so that a single instance of "264 1 ... $c [2013]" is now sufficient, as reported by Aaron Kuperman and Adam Schiff.</soapbox> John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College 807 Union St. Schenectady NY 12308 518-388-6623 mye...@union.edu<mailto:mye...@union.edu>
