Re: [RDA-L] 264 & end punctuation

[Julie Moore]

I agree. I think that we should either always end in a period *or* never
end in a period. But this inconsistency makes things much more complicated
than they need to be.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Julie Moore
Fresno State


On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:53 PM, J. McRee Elrod  wrote:

> Julie asked on Autocat and RDA:
>
> >From the PCC Guidelines for the 264 Field, I am hoping that someone can
> >please explain why the 264 _4 $c =A92009 does not end in a full stop?
>
> There is no logical reason.  SLC will use a full stop.
>
>
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

Re: [RDA-L] 264 & end punctuation

[Sarah Childs]

We've been puzzling over this here, too. I could see the logic in it if 
were only putting a period after the last 264 field, but I'm pretty 
mystified by putting it after the first but not the second. Although 
often when you have two fields the first doesn't have a period either, 
since it ends in a square bracket. This is the kind of stuff that makes 
catalogers seem crazy to everyone else.


---
Sarah Childs
Technical Services Department Head
Hussey-Mayfield Memorial Public Library
250 North Fifth Street
Zionsville, IN 46077
317-873-3149 x13330
sar...@zionsville.lib.in.us

On 2013-06-13 10:42, Julie Moore wrote:
I agree. I think that we should either always end in a period *or* 
never
end in a period. But this inconsistency makes things much more 
complicated

than they need to be.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Julie Moore
Fresno State


On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:53 PM, J. McRee Elrod  
wrote:



Julie asked on Autocat and RDA:

From the PCC Guidelines for the 264 Field, I am hoping that someone 
can
please explain why the 264 _4 $c =A92009 does not end in a full 
stop?


There is no logical reason.  SLC will use a full stop.



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

[RDA-L] (no subject)

[Susan Jakubowski]

Please remove my name from your list.  Thank you
 

[RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?

[Julie Moore]

(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

[RDA-L] Query about recording Copyright holder information

[Jennifer Lobb]

Hi all,

I am cataloging a book where the copyright holder is different from the
publisher. Are we supposed to put this in the 264 4 field or is the date
the only information that goes there?

Thanks.

Jenny

Re: [RDA-L] Query about recording Copyright holder information

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

Just the date.  The RDA element (see RDA 2.11) is "Copyright date", not 
"Copyright statement".

--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Jennifer Lobb
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 4:42 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: [RDA-L] Query about recording Copyright holder information

Hi all,

I am cataloging a book where the copyright holder is different from the 
publisher. Are we supposed to put this in the 264 4 field or is the date the 
only information that goes there?

Thanks.

Jenny

Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?

[Joan Wang]

There are something about core elements. The publication statement is core.
If there is no publication statement, distribution is going to be core. if
there is neither publication nor distribution, manufacture is going to be
core. Production is for unpublished materials. Copyright date is a core for
Library of Congress.

Hopefully it helps.

Thanks,
Joan Wang


On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 3:38 PM, 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
>



-- 
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

Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?

[Adam L. Schiff]

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
~~

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

Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?

[Julie Moore]

Thanks, Adam!

Got it! I have often heard these "core if" statements, but I wasn't sure if
you happened to have all of that info, if you should put all of them -- and
it sounds like you could if you wanted to, but it's not required.

Thanks for clearing this up.

Best wishes,
Julie


On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Adam L. Schiff 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
> ~~**
>
>
> 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

Re: [RDA-L] Query about recording Copyright holder information

[Adam L. Schiff]

Just the date (preceded by (c) or (p)).  You can record detailed copyright 
status in field 542: http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd542.html


Adam

^^
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, Jennifer Lobb wrote:


Hi all,

I am cataloging a book where the copyright holder is different from the
publisher. Are we supposed to put this in the 264 4 field or is the date
the only information that goes there?

Thanks.

Jenny

Re: [RDA-L] 264 Are all entity functions required?

[J. McRee Elrod]

Julie Moore asked on Autocat  RDA:

>Are we required to provide all if we have all? If not, which ones are
>required? 

Field 264  1, if known, is the only core one; 264 2 or 3 become core
only in the absence of data in 264  1.
  
We consider 264  0 needed, just as we provided that data in 260 contra
AACR2.

We supply 264  2 for electronic aggregators, with the original print
publisher in 264  1.  We only supply 264  4 if the year differs from
that in 264  1' it is not core.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?

[Julie Moore]

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 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
> ~~**
>
>
> 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

Re: [RDA-L] Query about recording Copyright holder information

[J. McRee Elrod]

Jennifer Lob asked:

>I am cataloging a book where the copyright holder is different from the
>publisher. Are we supposed to put this in the 264 4 field or is the date
>the only information that goes there?

Only $c in 264  4.  If you think the copyright holder is important, use
542.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?

[Adam L. Schiff]

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 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
~~**


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

[RDA-L] Query about RDA & photographs

[Anne Laguna]

Greetings everyone

I have been asked to forward this email to the list on behalf of another 
library service (but I am very interested in the reply as well).  Can anyone 
give advice:

Hello
I'm just trying to get some clarification on the appropriate use of the 
336-337-338 RDA tags to replace the GMD and the 300 marc tag for photographs.  
Previously we had a GMD [picture] and would expand upon this in the 300 tag as 
below.  I can't seem to locate an RDA example which refers to a photograph and 
need to know how to transfer this data into the RDA tags.  Can anyone assist?

245 1 0 ¶aAerial view taken from a box kite¶h[picture] /

300 _ _ ¶a1 photographic print :¶bb&w ;¶c6 x 8 in.

Regards
Nicole Hunt | Executive Coordinator, Library Systems & Collections | Library 
Services | Mackay Regional Council
Phone: 07 4961 9300  | Fax: 07 4944 2496| nicole.h...@mackay.qld.gov.au  | 
mackay.qld.gov.au

Cheers

Anne Laguna
Librarian, Resource & Access Management
CityLibraries Townsville
P  07 4773 8509
F  07 4773 8608
E  anne.lag...@townsville.qld.gov.au
W www.townsville.qld.gov.au
Townsville City Council
103-141 Walker Street
PO Box 1268
Townsville QLD 4810
PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE >> The information contained in this email 
is intended for the named recipients only. It may contain privileged and 
confidential information and if you are not the named intended recipient, you 
must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have 
received this email in error, please notify us immediately by email or the 
telephone number or email listed above.

Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?

[Julie Moore]

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 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 > >**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
>>> 
>>> >
>>> ~~
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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

Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?

[Adam L. Schiff]

Julie,

LC-PCC Policy Statement for 2.8.6.6 says "Supply a date of publication if 
possible, using the guidelines below, rather than give [date of 
publication not identified]."


A. If an item lacking a publication date contains only a copyright date, 
apply the following in the order listed:


1. 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.


2. If the copyright date is for the year following the year in which the 
publication is received, supply a date of publication that corresponds to 
the copyright date.


B. If an item lacking a publication date contains a copyright date and a 
date of manufacture and the year is the same for both, supply a date of 
publication that corresponds to that date, in square brackets, if it seems 
reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication date.


C. 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. A manufacture 
date may also be recorded as part of a manufacture statement, or recorded 
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.


^^
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:


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 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 
**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




~~



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 Moo

Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?

[Robert Maxwell]

Julie,

Strictly speaking once you've recorded or supplied a date of publication (264 
_1 $c) you have fulfilled the RDA core requirement and can quit. However, if 
there is in fact a date I found in the resource that I've used to infer the 
date of publication I like to include it in the description as evidence for my 
inference. So I usually include 264 _4 if I've deduced the publication date 
from a copyright date; if I've supplied it based on a manufacture date (e.g. a 
printing date) found in the resource I include 264 _3. This is even though the 
date in 264 _4 or 264 _3 may be the same as the supplied publication date. I 
also usually record the copyright date even in cases where I've recorded an 
explicit publication date from the resource itself, if the copyright date is 
different from the publication date.

This is just an explanation of my own practice; it's totally up to the 
cataloger's judgment.

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 5:21 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?

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 
mailto: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
~~


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

Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?

[Julie Moore]

Thanks, Bob ...

It's getting a little clearer!

Julie :-)



On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Robert Maxwell wrote:

>  Julie,
>
> ** **
>
> Strictly speaking once you’ve recorded or supplied a date of publication
> (264 _1 $c) you have fulfilled the RDA core requirement and can quit.
> However, if there is in fact a date I found in the resource that I’ve used
> to infer the date of publication I like to include it in the description as
> evidence for my inference. So I usually include 264 _4 if I’ve deduced the
> publication date from a copyright date; if I’ve supplied it based on a
> manufacture date (e.g. a printing date) found in the resource I include 264
> _3. This is even though the date in 264 _4 or 264 _3 may be the same as the
> supplied publication date. I also usually record the copyright date even in
> cases where I’ve recorded an explicit publication date from the resource
> itself, if the copyright date is different from the publication date.
>
> ** **
>
> This is just an explanation of my own practice; it’s totally up to the
> cataloger’s judgment.
>
> ** **
>
> 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 5:21 PM
>
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?
>
> ** **
>
> 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 
> 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
> ~~
>
>
>
> 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

Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?

[Robert Maxwell]

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 (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 
+  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 (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 (c)2009
Thanks for your guidance!
Best wishes,
Julie

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Adam L. Schiff 
mailto: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 
mailto: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
~~**



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
(copyri

Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?

[Julie Moore]

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 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 +  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 
> 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  >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.
>
> 

Re: [RDA-L] Query about RDA & photographs

[Robert Maxwell]

The content type would be “still image”. The media and carrier type depend on 
the carrier. If it’s a regular photograph the media type is “unmediated” and 
the carrier type is probably “card” (or possibly “sheet”).  “Sheet” is defined 
in the glossary as “a flat piece of thin material;” “Card” is defined as “a 
small sheet of opaque material”. “Small” isn’t defined. Let’s assume 6 x 8 
inches is “small.”

336  still image $2 rdacontent
337  unmediated $2 rdamedia
338  card $2 rdacarrier

If it’s a digital photograph the media and carrier type depend again on the 
carrier. But it looks like your example is a regular photograph.

As for the extent in your example, assuming it’s a photograph and not a print 
of a photograph, use “1 photograph”. If it’s a print, use “1 print” (RDA 
3.4.4). Don’t ask me the distinction. I gather the specialists know ☺. If it 
were me I’d use “1 photograph”.

The color content is recorded “black and white” (RDA 7.17.2.3)

The dimensions of a card (or a sheet) (e.g. a photograph) are recorded the same 
as we did in AACR2: height x width, measured to the nearest centimeter up (RDA 
3.5.1.4.1 or 3.5.1.4.11). RDA prefers metric, but allows agencies to use a 
different system of measurement if it’s their policy (RDA 3.5.1.3). LC’s policy 
according to the LC-PCC policy statement at 3.5.1.3 alternative is to use 
inches for discs and audio carriers, but an “inches” exception isn’t made in 
their policy statement for sheets or cards, so I assume LC would use metric 
here, although the size of photographs is more commonly given in inches in the 
United States. PCC hasn’t declared a preference.

300 1 photograph : $b black and white ; $c 6 x 8 in. [or the appropriate metric 
measurement] [and yes, “inches” is still abbreviated. Why? I don’t know.]
336  still image $2 rdacontent
337  unmediated $2 rdamedia
338  card $2 rdacarrier

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 Anne Laguna
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 6:11 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Query about RDA & photographs

Greetings everyone

I have been asked to forward this email to the list on behalf of another 
library service (but I am very interested in the reply as well).  Can anyone 
give advice:

Hello
I'm just trying to get some clarification on the appropriate use of the 
336-337-338 RDA tags to replace the GMD and the 300 marc tag for photographs.  
Previously we had a GMD [picture] and would expand upon this in the 300 tag as 
below.  I can't seem to locate an RDA example which refers to a photograph and 
need to know how to transfer this data into the RDA tags.  Can anyone assist?

245 1 0 ¶aAerial view taken from a box kite¶h[picture] /

300 _ _ ¶a1 photographic print :¶bb&w ;¶c6 x 8 in.

Regards
Nicole Hunt | Executive Coordinator, Library Systems & Collections | Library 
Services | Mackay Regional Council
Phone: 07 4961 9300  | Fax: 07 4944 2496| 
nicole.h...@mackay.qld.gov.au  | 
mackay.qld.gov.au

Cheers
Anne Laguna
Librarian, Resource & Access Management
CityLibraries Townsville
P  07 4773 8509
F  07 4773 8608
E  anne.lag...@townsville.qld.gov.au
W www.townsville.qld.gov.au
Townsville City Council
103-141 Walker Street
PO Box 1268
Townsville QLD 4810
PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE >> The information contained in this email 
is intended for the named recipients only. It may contain privileged and 
confidential information and if you are not the named intended recipient, you 
must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have 
received this email in error, please notify us immediately by email or the 
telephone number or email listed above.

Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?

[Robert Maxwell]

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 
mailto: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 (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 
+  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 (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 (c)2009
Thanks for your guidance!
Best wishes,
Julie

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Adam L. Schiff 
mailto: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

[RDA-L] RE : [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?

[Paradis Daniel]

According to LC's training material, a date such as "not after 2013" would be 
coded as follows:
008/06: q
008/07-10: 
008/11-14: 2013
 
I assume that in the case of a "not before date", code "" would appear in 
positions 11-14 instead.
 
Daniel Paradis
 
Bibliothécaire
Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales
Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec
 
2275, rue Holt
Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1
Téléphone : 514 873-1101, poste 3721
Télécopieur : 514 873-7296
daniel.para...@banq.qc.ca
http://www.banq.qc.ca  
 
Avis de confidentialité
Ce courriel est une communication confidentielle et l'information qu'il 
contient est réservée à l'usage exclusif du destinataire. Si vous n'êtes pas le 
destinataire visé, vous n'avez aucun droit d'utiliser cette information, de la 
copier, de la distribuer ou de la diffuser. Si cette communication vous a été 
transmise par erreur, veuillez la détruire et nous en aviser immédiatement par 
courriel.




De: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access de la 
part de Robert Maxwell
Date: jeu. 2013-06-13 21:09
À: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Objet : Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?



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 
+  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  
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

Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?

[Robert Maxwell]

Thanks--that makes sense. I hope it makes it way into the MARC documentation.

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 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Paradis Daniel 
[daniel.para...@banq.qc.ca]
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 8:57 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] RE : [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?

According to LC's training material, a date such as "not after 2013" would be 
coded as follows:
008/06: q
008/07-10: 
008/11-14: 2013

I assume that in the case of a "not before date", code "" would appear in 
positions 11-14 instead.

Daniel Paradis

Bibliothécaire
Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales
Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec

2275, rue Holt
Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1
Téléphone : 514 873-1101, poste 3721
Télécopieur : 514 873-7296
daniel.para...@banq.qc.ca
http://www.banq.qc.ca

Avis de confidentialité
Ce courriel est une communication confidentielle et l’information qu’il 
contient est réservée à l’usage exclusif du destinataire. Si vous n’êtes pas le 
destinataire visé, vous n’avez aucun droit d’utiliser cette information, de la 
copier, de la distribuer ou de la diffuser. Si cette communication vous a été 
transmise par erreur, veuillez la détruire et nous en aviser immédiatement par 
courriel.


De: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access de la 
part de Robert Maxwell
Date: jeu. 2013-06-13 21:09
À: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Objet : Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?

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 
+  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 
mailto: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
Universit

Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?

[Julie Moore]

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 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 
> 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 +  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 

Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?

[J. McRee Elrod]

Robert Maxwell asked:


>How do you code the MARC fixed date fields if you have a "not before"
.or a "not after" date of publication?

Fixed 008/07-10 date one has no question mark. but there is type of
date "q" questionable.  I would code type of date "q"  the year in 264  
1 $c, or that decade with the last digit  "u".

This is MARC, not RDA.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?

[J. McRee Elrod]

Julie Moore posted:

>264 #1 $a Syracuse, New York : $b [publisher not identified]

This $c helps no one.  If you doubt the copyright year is the
publication year, you you may use a question mark as well as the
brackets.

>264 #4 $c =A92009

Not needed with [2009] or [2009?] in 264  1.


>264 #1 $a Syracuse, New York : $b [publisher not identified], $c
>[2009]

Yes, but rarely can publisher not be guessed at for current materials.  
Where did Acquisitions acquire it?  It's worth a Google search to avoid
that long unhelpful phrase.

>264 #4 $c =A92009 

Some do it, but it is redundant and gives little additional
information.  Without a period, it will display inconsistently with
264  0-3.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] 264 1 date

[J. McRee Elrod]

Julie Moore asked:

>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?]
 
We are continuing AACR2's forbidding "[s.d.]", and continuing 201-] or
[201-?].  

I think we owe our patrons our best effort to be informative, and
certainly we are in a better position to guess than they.  We can
check the bibliography for last date of a listed item, for example.



   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Query about RDA & photographs

[J. McRee Elrod]

Anne Laguna posted:

>245 1 0 =B6aAerial view taken from a box kite=B6h[picture] /
>
>300 _ _ =B6a1 photographic print :=B6bb&w ;=B6c6 x 8 in.


RDA allows you to use as unit name (aka SMD) a popular term rather
than a term from the RDA carrier list.  So this is fine.

The "b&w" should be "black and white". and unless there is a new
LC/PCC PS, the size should be in cm.  Your unit name above is more
exact than just "photograph", particularly since most patrons do not
think of "photograph" as being limited to prints on light sensitive
paper.  Be as helpful and informative as RDA allows.  Cont's dumb
down.

The GMD would be replaced by:


336  $astill image$2rdacontent
337  $aunmediated$2rdamedia
338  $asheet$2rdacarrier

Certainly your unit name above is more helpful to patrons than "sheet"
or "card".  (Some photographs might be "card" rather than "sheet".)

The ISBD version of 336 would be 336  $aimage (still)$2isbdcontent.

Most ISBD Area 0 terms more more comprehensible than the RDA ones. as
well as being briefer, e.g., "image (moving)" rather than
"two-dimensional moving image".   (MARC has added the $2ibd source
codes.)





   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] 264 copyright date

[J. McRee Elrod]

Julie Moore asked:

>
>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

Yes.

But if the inferred publication date and the copyright date are the
same year, I urge you to change the record to date type "s", date one
only, and delete 264  4.  There is no need to make ourselves look
ridiculous to patrons, pretending one date is two.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__