I would consider First published date 2012 as the publication date. Reprinted date 2013 would be a manufacture date. In this case, the manufacture statement can be ignored. Anyway, if you consider it important, put a 500 note for the reprinted date.
Also, for the second 264 field (with the second indicator 4), the only thing you need is sub-field c for the copyright date. As you did, put a symbol before the date. Hopefully it helps. Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Basma Chebani <b...@aub.edu.lb> wrote: > Hello, > > I have one a case with the following: > Reprinted date 2013 > First published date 2012 > Copyright Robin Mansell (c)2012 (the author) > > I recorded them in RDA 246 as follows: > 008 date type r Date 1 = 2012 Date 2 = 2013 > 264 #1 $a Oxford : $b Oxford University Press, $c [2013] > 264 #4 $a [Oxford] : $b Robin Mansell, $c (c)2012 > 588 ## $First published 2012 and reprinted in 2013. > > 020 ##9780199697052 > > Kindly advise > Thank you > > Basma Chebani > Head of Cataloging and Metadata Services Department > University Libraries / Jafet > American University of Beirut > Beirut - Lebanon > Tel: 961-1-350000 ext.2614 > basma.cheb...@aub.edu.lb > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:49 PM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 with only a copyright date > > Gene Fieg asked, regarding the inclusion of copyright date and inferred > publication date in an RDA record: > > > And how is the user supposed to make sense of this? > > How are thesis advisors supposed to make sense of this when checking > bibliographical citations? > > How will it display???? > > I don't see what you think is confusing about this. The user will look > for a publication date, and will find it. What is confusing about that? > The same with thesis advisors. What publication date do you think thesis > advisors would expect to find? This inferred publication date is only used > when there is no evidence of a publication date except the copyright date. > A thesis advisor would almost certainly rather some guess of the > publication date than no date at all. I would note that theses generally > don't have copyright dates, and do have other dates which can be inferred > as publication date. So this isn't usually an issue with theses anyway. > > As for how it will display, that is up to the ILS, of course. One > reasonable way (but hardly the only possible way) it could be displayed is: > Publication date: [2011] > Copyright: (c)2011 > > That's the way we have it set up in our catalog (Millennium, the same as > you have, I believe). > > Steve McDonald > steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu > -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
