You did say broad feedback, right? For 1st example I would use 2012, for 2nd example I would use 2008 if a record just for the paperback is made. In choosing the 1st printing dates in both instances, I have assumed the announced printing dates to be equivalent to dates of publication. The copyright dates which are not used to infer the publication dates are no longer core, may still be included in another area, especially since they differ from the dates used. My take. Jack Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville j...@franciscan.edu
>>> Deborah Fritz <debo...@marcofquality.com> 6/18/2013 9:31 AM >>> Dear RDA-L Folks, I would very much like to get some broad feedback from as many of you as possible, on how you would handle the dates for following two resources: Example 1 Verso of book reads: Copyright © 2013 First printing, August 2012 ISBN 9780321832740 Which date would you use to supply the publication date: a) the copyright date b) the first printing date Would you add any other date information? --------------------- Example 2 Verso of book reads: Copyright © 2007 First printed in paperback 2008 ISBN 977-0-300-14333-1 (pbk) ISBN 978-0-300-12078-3 (alk. Paper) The hardcover version was published in 2007 Which date would you use to supply the publication date for the paperback that you have: c) the copyright date d) the first printing (paperback) date Would you add any other date information? --------------------- I’m trying to get a sense of how much variation we can expect to see in copy cataloging records, for this type of situation. If you would rather not share with the list, then would you please reply to me personally at: debo...@marcofquality.com? Thanks very much, Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. debo...@marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.com Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
