Dates have always been tricky J RDA has simply added a couple of new twists to the maze (I spent over 3 hours on dates alone, in my AACR workshops-just for basics)
Printing dates have always been a special challenge; my mantra about them is: “Printing doesn’t matter, changes in printing dates do not matter, printing dates simply mean the publisher ran off more copies, so printing doesn’t matter--*except* for: - A first printing date (as a good indication of when the book was published, e.g., it could not have been published before it was printed, and once it was printed it would have been published as quickly as possible (no point in warehousing millions of copies of books) unless some event prevented that from happening) - A significantly different printing date (as a possibly interesting indication that a book has remained in print for a long time, and that you have a fresher copy of the actual item than the publication date would suggest) - When a printing date is not first printing, but is all that you have (at least you know that your book could not have been published after that printing date) Other than these exceptions, printing doesn’t matter, it really does not matter!” I know, it is a long mantra, but the short form works well: “Printing doesn’t matter (except …)” So, with that in mind (printing doesn’t matter), whether you are copying or creating records, the other main thing to remember is the order of preference that Trina pointed out: 1. Date of Publication 2. Date of Distribution 3. Copyright Date 4. Date of Manufacture (Printing) 5. No Date Identified So, absolutely use the copyright date to supply a date of publication, when that is all that is available. But, if a printing date is also available, and is a first printing date, then remember that LC-PCC PS for 2.10.6 <http: //access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp2&target=lcps2-1702#lcps2-170 2> B) says that it must seem reasonable to assume that the copyright date is a likely publication date, and if the book was printed before or after the copyright date, then ask yourself if it is actually reasonable that the book was published when it was copyrighted. Dana also points out that LC-PCC PS for 2.10.6 <http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp2&target=lcps2-1702#lcp s2-1702> says to use the 588 “Description based on” note: “A date of manufacture may also be recorded as part of a manufacture statement, or as part of a Note on issue, part, or iteration used as the basis for identification of a resource (See 2.20.13), if determined useful by the cataloger” I would very much appreciate clarification about this, because when I read 2.20.13.1 it does not seem to me that we are supposed to use this note for single part monographs: “A note on issue, part, or iteration used as the basis for identification of the resource▼ is a note identifying what was used to identify the resource: the issue or part of a multipart monograph or serial or the iteration of an integrating resource” The scope note seems to me to be fairly clearly restricting the use of the note to multipart monographs, serials, and integrating resources. Does anyone know whether this Scope instruction is in the process of being changed to allow for use for a single part monograph? If this element (Note on Issue, Part, or Iteration Used as the Basis for Identification of the Resource) can be used for single part monographs, then it could certainly be used instead of the 500 note and say something like “Description based on first printing, 2013”. Yup, dates are tricky. Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. <mailto:debo...@marcofquality.com> debo...@marcofquality.com <http://www.marcofquality.com> www.marcofquality.com From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 2:00 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing Thank you for doing this Deborah. I find providing the 264 subfield c to be tricky these days, and it seems that perhaps the rules and/or LC-PCC PSs might need to be tweaked a little to make this clearer for all of us, so we don’t see this wide variation in our records. I cringe every time I have a book which doesn’t have a clear date of publication. I’m at a former RLIN institution, so we make Institution Records (IRs), so I can make a change in my own record if I disagree with what is in the master, but I’m wondering what impact this difference of interpretation will mean in OCLC? I don’t know a lot about how OCLC does matching to determine if there are duplicate masters, but I know they are to be avoided. I suppose that institutions that don’t make IRs can just edit the record locally, but is adding on an IR that differs in terms of what date in the first listed 264, and in the fixed fields a problem? Or is making a new master the better option? Are we going to end up with multiple master records because of 264 |c differences of interpretation? I admit to not having spent as much time with RDA as I should have by now, but I often catalog books which only have a copyright date and absolutely no other date-no printing date, no dated Preface or Introduction-no other dates anywhere. In most cases, the (c) year is the same as the year the item was received at my library. Rule 2.11 says to provide the copyright date if neither the date of publication, nor the date of distribution have been identified. Does this rule assume that you have a date of manufacture then, and that in MARC speak, the 264 you add with the copyright date would be a second 264? I’m just wondering why the lack of a date of manufacture isn’ t also mentioned as a condition for the (c) to be core in rule 2.11? In LC-PCC PS 2.8.6.6 there is an example of a book only having a (c) date and the (c) year is the year after the year in which the item was received. In the attendant example, the (c) date is in square brackets in a 264 _1 (without the (c) symbol), and a 264 _4 with |c (c)date is added. A DtSt of “t” is used with the same year in Date 1 and Date 2. I’m just wondering if a book with only a (c) date is received in the same year as the (c) year, if this gives any more weight to the (c) date also being the year of publication, and if so, can only one 264 (with second indicator of 1, and the (c) year in [ ] without the (c) symbol) be used, and a DtSt of “s” with only one date in the fixed fields be used? I haven’t been able to find an example of having only a (c) date and the (c) date being the same as the year the item was received in either RDA or the LC-PCC policy statements, but I may just be missing it. I know that Adam Schiff recently said that if there is a (c) date present in the book he always records it, which I agree with, especially in cases where a (c) date is the only date present in the resource. I’m wondering though, just for my own understanding of RDA and the policy statements, if there is only a (c) year, and that year is the year in which the book was received, if that satisfies the condition laid out in LC-PCC PS 2.8.6.6, section 1: “if it seems reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication date”, more so than if the (c) date is the year after the year in which the resource was received, as seen in section 2 of LC-PCC PS 2.8.6.6. Also Deborah, in your “my take” on the examples, for your take on the second example, would the 500 note be a 588 note? A 588 note is used in the example in LC-PCC PS 2.10.6. If one doesn’t use the actual words “Description based on” do you not use the 588 (Source of description note), and is a 500 (General note) more appropriate? I have not done that much cataloging in RDA yet, so I hadn’t thought of adding a 5XX note to help explain my reasoning for the date (or dates) chosen for the 264 (or 264s), it does seem that a 5XX note would be very helpful, but not having any experience with the 588 field I’m just wondering if it would be used in this case rather than a 500 field. Thank you again Deborah for bringing this up. I would appreciate your advice for my questions, and that of any one else who would like to respond. Thanks very much, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Fritz Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 1:41 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing My thanks to the folks who sent in feedback on how they would handle my two date examples. As I suspected, there was considerable variation on how the dates would be entered for these resources-here is a summary, with some paraphrasing, and extrapolating, so hopefully I have interpreted all the replies correctly: Example 1 Verso of book reads: Copyright (c) 2013 First printing, August 2012 ISBN 9780321832740 Use (c) to supply PubD = 2 264_1 … $c[2013] Use (c) to supply PubD, add (c) = 1 264_1 … $c[2013] 264_4 $c(c)2013 ---- Use 1st Prt to supply PubD, add (c) = 4 264_1 … $c[2012] 264_4 $c(c)2013 Use 1st Prt to supply PubD, add PrtD, add (c) = 1 264_1 … $c[2012] 264_3 … $c2012. 264_4 $c(c)2013 Enter 1st Prt as PubD = 2 264_1 … $c2012. ------------------------------ Here is my take on the 1st example: LC-PCC PS for 2.10.6 <http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp2&target=lcps2-1702#lcp s2-1702> B) says: “If an item lacking a publication date contains a copyright date and a date of manufacture and the years differ, supply a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright date, in square brackets, if it seems reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication date” C.1) says: “Supply a date of publication that corresponds to the manufacture date, in square brackets, if it seems reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication date. For books, this means that the item is assumed to be the first printing of the edition. Also record the manufacture date as part of a manufacture statement if determined useful by the cataloger.” Email correspondence with LC clarified that since, for books, the first printing of the edition is assumed to be a likely publication date, if the item lacking a publication date contains a copyright date and a date of manufacture and the years differ, supply a date of publication that corresponds to the first printing date, in square brackets, since it is not reasonable to assume that the copyright date is a likely publication date, since it is logical to assume that the first printing date is the more likely publication date (the resource cannot be published until it is printed, once it is printed, it is likely to be immediately published, and publishers have been known to put later copyright dates on resources) I did ask LC to make this a bit more obvious in the LC PCC PS, but I’m not sure I convinced them that this would be necessary. So, based on this, I would use 1st Prt to supply PubD, add PrtD, add (c) *and* I would also add the note to explain why I used the printing date rather than the (c) date (to help copy catalogers, not patrons): 264_1 … $c[2012] 264_3 … $c2012. 264_4 $c(c)2013 500 $aFirst printing, 2013. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- Example 2 Verso of book reads: Copyright (c) 2007 First printed in paperback 2008 ISBN 977-0-300-14333-1 (pbk) ISBN 978-0-300-12078-3 (alk. Paper) Share hardcover record, but otherwise use 1st Prt to supply PubD = 3 264_1 … $c[2008] Share hardcover record, but otherwise use 1st Prt to supply PubD, add (c) = 4 264_1 … $c[2008] 264_4 $c(c)2007 Share hardcover record, but otherwise use 1st Prt to supply PubD, add PrtD, add (c) = 1 264_1 … $c[2008] 264_3 … $c2008. 264_4 $c(c)2007 Share hardcover record, but otherwise use 1st Prt as PubD, do not add (c) because would be confusing = 1 264_1 … $c2008. -------------------- Here is my take on the 2nd example: First, I agree that we would, in the past, add the paperback to the hardcover record, if the only difference is the binding; but I have to say that the date difference always bothered me (especially if it actually said “Paperback published …” rather than “Paperback printing …” ). I know that we are currently in the ‘don’t rock the boat’ mode while we are still in MARC, and so will probably continue with this practice, but I am even more uneasy with it, under RDA thinking. But, let’s say there was some indication of a difference, e.g., a reader’s guide added to the paperback. In that case, I would apply the same reasoning as before from LC-PCC PS for 2.10.6 <http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp2&target=lcps2-1702#lcp s2-1702> and use 1st Prt to supply PubD, add (c) and, again, add an explanatory note about the date I used to supply the PubD. 264_1 … $c[2008] 264_3 … $c2008. 264_4 $c(c)2007 500 $aFirst printing, 2008. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- It is interesting that 3 responses said to use the (c) date to supply the PubD , for the 1st example, but no responses said to do that for the 2nd example; I assume that is because the (c) was the latest date in the 1st example. To me, this indicates that clarification at the LC-PCC PS for 2.10. 6 <http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp2&target=lcps2-1702#lcp s2-1702> would be very helpful. Thanks again to everyone for the responses. They certainly verified for me that this “First printing” issue is still not crystal clear. Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. debo...@marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.com From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Fritz Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:32 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing 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 (c) 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 (c) 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
