Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[J. McRee Elrod]

Michael Borries posted:

>I have wondered whether originally the approach of separating
>publication date and copyright date didn't arise, in part, at least,
>from this phenomenon of having books published earlier than the
>copyright date indicates.


I don't think so.  Both rules and standards say to ignore those early
arrivals.  I prefer to think of the publication date being the
copyring date (if no publication date given on the item), and the
early arrivals to be early distribution as opposed to publication.

The distinction is more helpful for items published some time after
copyright.


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

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[Goldfarb, Kathie]

Just a comment.

In the old days, a book might have a copyright date, with a second date listed 
on the book. Was it a new publication or a reprint?  The instruction at that 
time was that if it was made with the same 'plates' it was considered to be a 
reprint.  Sometimes the books had the same copyright date, but typos had been 
corrected. Sometimes those typos could be significant.  Especially at that 
time, there was more need for both dates.  

I think today's publishers are more likely to put a note in the book that it is 
'revised' or 'corrected' or some similar note to distinguish the two items, if 
only to get people to purchase the second book (guess it is my cynical day)

kathie

Kathleen Goldfarb
Technical Services Librarian
College of the Mainland
Texas City, TX 77539
409 933 8202

 Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email.


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Michael Borries
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 8:50 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

I have wondered whether originally the approach of separating publication date 
and copyright date didn't arise, in part, at least, from this phenomenon of 
having books published earlier than the copyright date indicates.  I am 
sympathetic to the concern that a cataloger with the book in hand in 2013, 
copyrighted 2013, might wonder why the cataloging record available has 2012 in 
the 264.  However, I wonder if the 588 note, or a 500 note, could not be used, 
e.g., "Item received for cataloging March 10, 2012," thus indicating that the 
book was in fact available in 2012. 


Michael S. Borries
CUNY Central Cataloging
151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY  10010
email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu
Phone: (646) 312-1687


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Patricia Sayre-McCoy 
[p...@uchicago.edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:01 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

But what about the cataloger who received the book in 2013? And the patron who 
used it last week but it can't be this book because this book hasn't been 
published yet? I makes less sense to pretend that the book wasn't published for 
8 months than to include a bracked publication date and make it clear when the 
book was actually available.
Pat

Patricia Sayre-McCoy
Head, Law Cataloging and Serials
D'Angelo Law Library
University of Chicago
773-702-9620
p...@uchicago.edu


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Lisa Hatt
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:45 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

On 3/28/2013 8:07 AM, Will Evans  wrote:

> Rules or no rules, shouldn't the record reflect the reality of the 
> situation?!
>
> 264#1 $c [2013]
> 264#4 $c (c) 2014
>
>
> 500 Publication received by cataloging agency in 2013. $ MBAt

I'm puzzled by this approach, which seems to second-guess the publisher's 
intent. Unless there's something we haven't been told, I don't get the idea 
that the resource itself makes any statement about having been published in 
2013. If a cataloger first encountered this item in 2014+, they'd have no 
reason to believe it was published in anything other than 2014, because that's 
the date printed on the thing itself, yes?

(I know there are reverse cases where a later ed. such as trade pbk.
does not actually state its publication date and simply retains the copyright 
of the first hc ed., resulting in situations like [2002],
c2001 in AACR2. But in that case other information supports the choice of 
supplied date, I think.)

Rare books might be different, and I am no RDA guru, but my feeling would be to 
go with what Deborah recommended.

--
Lisa Hatt
Cataloging
De Anza College Library
408-864-8459

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[Laurence Creider]

I would think that the situation was the reverse.  For much of the late 
19th and most of the 20th century, there was often a gap of some years 
between the copyright date and the later date of publication or 
production.  Knopf would generally (?) put the date of the printing on the 
t.p. with the copyright on the t.p. verso.  If another publisher brought 
out an edition, the date of that edition would generally be different from 
the copyright date.


The dilemma of books arriving with a copyright date of the following year 
is something that I think is somewhat later, although I am sure examples 
could be found earlier.  If something unusual can be done to a book in 
design or publication, some publisher will have done it.


Larry

--
Laurence S. Creider
Interim Head,
Archives and Special Collections Dept.
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 575-646-4756
Fax: 575-646-7477
lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013, Michael Borries wrote:

I have wondered whether originally the approach of separating publication date and copyright date didn't arise, in part, at least, from this phenomenon of having books published earlier than the copyright date indicates.  I am sympathetic to the concern that a cataloger with the book in hand in 2013, copyrighted 2013, might wonder why the cataloging record available has 2012 in the 264.  However, I wonder if the 588 note, or a 500 note, could not be used, e.g., "Item received for cataloging March 10, 2012," thus indicating that the book was in fact available in 2012. 



Michael S. Borries
CUNY Central Cataloging
151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY  10010
email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu
Phone: (646) 312-1687


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Patricia Sayre-McCoy 
[p...@uchicago.edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:01 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

But what about the cataloger who received the book in 2013? And the patron who 
used it last week but it can't be this book because this book hasn't been 
published yet? I makes less sense to pretend that the book wasn't published for 
8 months than to include a bracked publication date and make it clear when the 
book was actually available.
Pat

Patricia Sayre-McCoy
Head, Law Cataloging and Serials
D'Angelo Law Library
University of Chicago
773-702-9620
p...@uchicago.edu


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Lisa Hatt
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:45 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

On 3/28/2013 8:07 AM, Will Evans  wrote:


Rules or no rules, shouldn't the record reflect the reality of the
situation?!

264#1 $c [2013]
264#4 $c (c) 2014


500 Publication received by cataloging agency in 2013. $ MBAt


I'm puzzled by this approach, which seems to second-guess the
publisher's intent. Unless there's something we haven't been told, I
don't get the idea that the resource itself makes any statement about
having been published in 2013. If a cataloger first encountered this
item in 2014+, they'd have no reason to believe it was published in
anything other than 2014, because that's the date printed on the thing
itself, yes?

(I know there are reverse cases where a later ed. such as trade pbk.
does not actually state its publication date and simply retains the
copyright of the first hc ed., resulting in situations like [2002],
c2001 in AACR2. But in that case other information supports the choice
of supplied date, I think.)

Rare books might be different, and I am no RDA guru, but my feeling
would be to go with what Deborah recommended.

--
Lisa Hatt
Cataloging
De Anza College Library
408-864-8459

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[Roe,Kevin]

And it might be interesting (and valuable) to query the publishing industry to 
discern their definition of "published" and how they choose to put dates on 
their items. It's very common in my experience to see copyright dates for the 
following year months before the year begins. And even more rare to see an 
actual "publication" date. 

And to the user, what does the copyright date actually mean? Copyright is 
essentially a legal date that publishers use to protect their content, while 
the actual date of publication is a better guide to when the item was issued. 

And let's not forget to mention printing dates, copyright renewal dates, 
revised printing dates...

Kevin Roe
Supervisor, Media Processing
Fort Wayne Community Schools
1511 Catalpa St.
Fort Wayne IN 46802
260-467-2510 (voice)
260-467-2538 (fax)
 


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Michael Borries
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 9:50 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

I have wondered whether originally the approach of separating publication date 
and copyright date didn't arise, in part, at least, from this phenomenon of 
having books published earlier than the copyright date indicates.  I am 
sympathetic to the concern that a cataloger with the book in hand in 2013, 
copyrighted 2013, might wonder why the cataloging record available has 2012 in 
the 264.  However, I wonder if the 588 note, or a 500 note, could not be used, 
e.g., "Item received for cataloging March 10, 2012," thus indicating that the 
book was in fact available in 2012. 


Michael S. Borries
CUNY Central Cataloging
151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY  10010
email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu
Phone: (646) 312-1687

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[Michael Borries]

I have wondered whether originally the approach of separating publication date 
and copyright date didn't arise, in part, at least, from this phenomenon of 
having books published earlier than the copyright date indicates.  I am 
sympathetic to the concern that a cataloger with the book in hand in 2013, 
copyrighted 2013, might wonder why the cataloging record available has 2012 in 
the 264.  However, I wonder if the 588 note, or a 500 note, could not be used, 
e.g., "Item received for cataloging March 10, 2012," thus indicating that the 
book was in fact available in 2012. 


Michael S. Borries
CUNY Central Cataloging
151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY  10010
email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu
Phone: (646) 312-1687


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Patricia Sayre-McCoy 
[p...@uchicago.edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:01 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

But what about the cataloger who received the book in 2013? And the patron who 
used it last week but it can't be this book because this book hasn't been 
published yet? I makes less sense to pretend that the book wasn't published for 
8 months than to include a bracked publication date and make it clear when the 
book was actually available.
Pat

Patricia Sayre-McCoy
Head, Law Cataloging and Serials
D'Angelo Law Library
University of Chicago
773-702-9620
p...@uchicago.edu


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Lisa Hatt
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:45 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

On 3/28/2013 8:07 AM, Will Evans  wrote:

> Rules or no rules, shouldn't the record reflect the reality of the
> situation?!
>
> 264#1 $c [2013]
> 264#4 $c (c) 2014
>
>
> 500 Publication received by cataloging agency in 2013. $ MBAt

I'm puzzled by this approach, which seems to second-guess the
publisher's intent. Unless there's something we haven't been told, I
don't get the idea that the resource itself makes any statement about
having been published in 2013. If a cataloger first encountered this
item in 2014+, they'd have no reason to believe it was published in
anything other than 2014, because that's the date printed on the thing
itself, yes?

(I know there are reverse cases where a later ed. such as trade pbk.
does not actually state its publication date and simply retains the
copyright of the first hc ed., resulting in situations like [2002],
c2001 in AACR2. But in that case other information supports the choice
of supplied date, I think.)

Rare books might be different, and I am no RDA guru, but my feeling
would be to go with what Deborah recommended.

--
Lisa Hatt
Cataloging
De Anza College Library
408-864-8459

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[M. E.]

Ian Fairclough  wrote:

> I have been wondering how and why this situation concerning publication in
> a year yet to come arose, and why LCPCCPS was written the way it is.
> Perhaps the situation developed from an attempt in LCPCCPS to make RDA
> easier to use while fulfilling the instruction to supply a missing
> publication date, something not required in AACR2 nor LCRI, as in the
> following.
>
> Here are instructions from AACR2: 1.4F6: "If the dates of publication,
> distribution, etc., are unknown, give the copyright date or, in its
> absence, the date of manufacture (indicated as such) in its place." LCRI
> 1.4F6 says "If the item contains only a copyright date, give the copyright
> date."
>
> The corresponding instruction in RDA 2.8.6.6: "If the date of publication
> is not identified in the single-part resource, supply the date or
> approximate date of publication. " LCPCCPS 2.8.6.6 has "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."
>

To fill out the quotations in this thread, there are also the following in
the LCRI:

LCRI 1.4F1: "Later Publication Dates: ... If a U.S. trade publication has a
publication date that is in the year following the year in which the
publication is received, accept the later publication date as the date of
the edition being cataloged.  For example, if '2002' appears as the
publication date on a publication received in 2001, give '2002' as the
publication date."

LCRI 1.4F6: "Later Copyright Dates: ... If a U.S. trade publication lacking
a publication date has a copyright date that is in the year following the
year in which the publication is received, accept the later copyright date
as a substitute for the publication date.  For example, if '©2002' appears
on a publication received in 2001, give 'c2002' as the publication date."


-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

[RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[Ian Fairclough]

RDA-L readers, 

Mac Elrod said: "SLC agrees with the various guidelines (LC, PCC) that one 
should use the single year in 008 and 26X as on the item. We consider the book 
to be published when the publisher said it was, and the item received before 
January to be an early release, common for review copies. We should describe 
items as they present themselves. Remember the flap when some libraries who had 
advance copies of a Harry Potter, allowed people to see them in advance?" 

When no publication date appears on a book, then the item has not "presented 
itself" as having one, to use Mac's phrase. The copyright date is not the 
publication date. I have yet to see a book with a statement "First published in 
..." or the unadorned year on the title page with any year later than the 
current one, regardless of the fact that copyright years often are later.

It appears that confusion has arisen between the roles of distribution and 
publication.  Data about the actual date of publication, with month and day as 
well as year, are made available to all concerned. I believe that Publisher's 
Weekly is the tool used in the trade (correction requested). The book does not 
legally get sold in bookstores or lent in libraries prior to the publication 
date. But it can be distributed at an earlier date. Indeed, distribution must 
occur for bookstores to have thebook available on publication date. 
 
The case of Harry Potter involved distribution, not publication. The books were 
distributed to libraries, who were allowed to have the book in advance of 
publication, fully processed and ready to lend, but were prohibited from 
releasing the book until the stroke of midnight on the date of publication. The 
Harry Potter case is not the only one: I have had other materials arrive at my 
desk with notice not to release them until a specific date.

In talking about an "early release" there's also a danger of confusion with 
releases labeled "Advance uncorrected proof", etc., which are NOT the same as 
the published book. There's no need for the phrase "early release." Rather, an 
understanding of the relationship between distribution and publication covers 
the Harry Potter scenario and similar ones.  But if you have received the book 
with no restriction on the date on which it may be released for use, it has 
most probably been published and is ready for public use. 

I have been wondering how and why this situation concerning publication in a 
year yet to come arose, and why LCPCCPS was written the way it is. Perhaps the 
situation developed from an attempt in LCPCCPS to make RDA easier to use while 
fulfilling the instruction to supply a missing publication date, something not 
required in AACR2 nor LCRI, as in the following.

Here are instructions from AACR2: 1.4F6: "If the dates of publication, 
distribution, etc., are unknown, give the copyright date or, in its absence, 
the date of manufacture (indicated as such) in its place." LCRI 1.4F6 says "If 
the item contains only a copyright date, give the copyright date."

The corresponding instruction in RDA 2.8.6.6: "If the date of publication is 
not identified in the single-part resource, supply the date or approximate date 
of publication. " LCPCCPS 2.8.6.6 has "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."

Unlike RDA, AACR2 does not instruct to supply a publication date. Perhaps 
because RDA has that instruction, and because of the association of the 
copyright date with the publication date in a manner fostered by AACR2, the 
LCPCCPS was written the way it is. Maybe someone can clarify further.

I wonder who is required to follow LCPCCPS. To my knowledge OCLC does not 
require that, unlike the expectation to follow both AACR2 and LCRI in days gone 
by.  LCPCCPS clearly states what to do, for those who require instruction that 
does not require cataloger's judgment. Perhaps this LCPCCPS was formulated as a 
time-saving device, intending to parallel AACR2/LCRI. However, it does not 
parallel them exactly. 

Sincerely - Ian

Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com   

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[J. McRee Elrod]

John Williams said:

>I think that in 10 years time a scholar looking for materials on Italian
>politics would very much like to know if a book had been published in 2013
>or 2014.
 
SLC agrees with the various guidelines (LC, PCC) that one should use
the single year in 008 and 26X as on the item.  We consider the book
to be published when the publisher said it was, and the item received
before January to be an early release, common for review copies.  We
should describe items as they present themselves.

Remember the flap when some libraries who had advance copies of a
Harry Potter, allowed people to see them in advance?
  
If one wishes to be "nasty nice"m and indicate in a note when the item
was available to some, no problem.  To repeat, he description should
represent the item as the publisher describes it.  That seems the
clear intent of RDA, which even has typos transcribed as found. with
no correction in the discription. only in a note.

The time to use publication and copyright years in 260$c, or copyright
year in 264 4 $c, is when a later publication year appears on the
item.


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

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[John Williams]

I think that in 10 years time a scholar looking for materials on Italian
politics would very much like to know if a book had been published in 2013
or 2014. In fact the month in 2013 would be useful, and I like the idea of
adding a note.

Catalogers receiving the book in 2014 would know very well that it had been
published in 2013, thanks to all those colleagues who had already recorded
the fact.

John Williams
Technical Services Librarian
Robert H. Evans Library
Bologna, Italy

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[Daniel CannCasciato]

I tend to agree with approach of recording both years.  We didn't create the 
conundrum.  

I agree with Adam that there's a high probability that  "Two, five, ten years 
from now, that book is going to be seen in the scholarly community as from 
2014, not from 2013." (if cited at all, of course).  But again, that's not an 
issue we created and likely not to be a stumper to future scholarship in the 
field if we record both dates.  However, by recording the dates we do help 
catalogers handling the book/resource and adding it to their collections.  

Daniel



-- 
Daniel CannCasciato
Head of Cataloging
Central Washington University Brooks Library
Ellensburg, WA 98926
 
"Wearing the sensible shoes proudly since 1977!"

[RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[Ian Fairclough]

RDA-L readers,

To address Adam Schiff's concern about how scholars will cite a publication.  
We as catalogers are contributing to that very scholarship when we document the 
actual publication date.  If scholars care to consult our records, they can 
correct the false impression that the copyright date creates.  Envisage this 
scenario: A scholar is required to have had a publication during a certain 
year.  The catalog can attest to the fact, when the book itself does not.

Perhaps the next development in this train of thought is that the meaning 
ofpublished doesn't cover the fact that the book is in print and available to 
the public. In this scenario, the book can't possibly have been "published" in 
2013, since it is copyright 2014.  It must therefore be published in 2014, as 
LC PCC PS mandates be recorded.  A question mark is irrelevant: we "know" that 
its publication date is 2014, just as we know that the book now exists (in 
2013) but has not yet been published.

If this argument is valid, it is an exercise in making a word mean what you 
want it to mean. Not thinking that way just yet?  Don't worry, you'll get it 
once the new meaning has been adopted in common parlance, among catalogers if 
not among the population at large.  


There's another case in LC PCC PS where the meaning of the word published has 
been interpreted so that we are instructed to record materials as published 
when they are in fact restricted to a small, select group of recipients.  
2.8.1.1 "Treat privately printed resources as published resources ..."

Have we catalogers lost sight of the meaning of published as "made publicly 
available?"  Here's a definition from Wikipedia:

Publishing is the process of production and dissemination of literature, music, 
or information — the activity of making information available to the general 
public.

- Ian P.S. Anyone read The Gutenberg Galaxy recently?
 
Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[Will Evans]

Well, think about the future scholar that wants to know if the resource
was available in 2013 to prove some thesis he is working on.


~~
Will Evans
Chief Rare Materials Catalog Librarian
Library of the Boston Athenaeum
10 1/2 Beacon Street
Boston, MA   02108

Tel:  617-227-0270 ext. 224
Fax: 617-227-5266
www.bostonathenaeum.org




-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:26 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

Except, think about how people are going to cite such a work in their
research.  I doubt many take the bib record from our catalogs and use
that.  Instead they will probably look at the book in hand, see only a
copyright date, and record that year in their bibliographies.  Two, five,
ten years from now, that book is going to be seen in the scholarly
community as from 2014, not from 2013.

^^
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, 28 Mar 2013, Will Evans wrote:

> I am not a RDA guru either and perhaps I am too rare book centric in
> my thinking, but I do not understand the need to perpetuate the myth
> that the publication date is 2014, when the resource was clearly
published in 2013.
> The resource may not state that it is published in 2013, but by the
> fact that it is on my desk waiting to be cataloged in 2013, I can
> conclude that it was indeed published in 2013, despite the presence of
> a copyright date of 2014. Moreover, I would argue that the RDA
> definition of publication date is consistent with this line of
> thought, as we know the resource was released in 2013.
>
>  Date of Publication: A date associated with the publication, release,
> or issuing of a resource.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
> Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Lisa Hatt
> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 2:45 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date
>
> On 3/28/2013 8:07 AM, Will Evans  wrote:
>
>> Rules or no rules, shouldn't the record reflect the reality of the
>> situation?!
>>
>> 264#1 $c [2013]
>> 264#4 $c (c) 2014
>>
>>
>> 500 Publication received by cataloging agency in 2013. $ MBAt
>
> I'm puzzled by this approach, which seems to second-guess the
> publisher's intent. Unless there's something we haven't been told, I
> don't get the idea that the resource itself makes any statement about
> having been published in 2013. If a cataloger first encountered this
> item in 2014+, they'd have no reason to believe it was published in
> anything other than 2014, because that's the date printed on the thing
itself, yes?
>
> (I know there are reverse cases where a later ed. such as trade pbk.
> does not actually state its publication date and simply retains the
> copyright of the first hc ed., resulting in situations like [2002],
> c2001 in AACR2. But in that case other information supports the choice
> of supplied date, I think.)
>
> Rare books might be different, and I am no RDA guru, but my feeling
> would be to go with what Deborah recommended.
>
> --
> Lisa Hatt
> Cataloging
> De Anza College Library
> 408-864-8459
>

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[Adam L. Schiff]

Except, think about how people are going to cite such a work in their 
research.  I doubt many take the bib record from our catalogs and use 
that.  Instead they will probably look at the book in hand, see only a 
copyright date, and record that year in their bibliographies.  Two, five, 
ten years from now, that book is going to be seen in the scholarly 
community as from 2014, not from 2013.


^^
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, 28 Mar 2013, Will Evans wrote:


I am not a RDA guru either and perhaps I am too rare book centric in my
thinking, but I do not understand the need to perpetuate the myth that the
publication date is 2014, when the resource was clearly published in 2013.
The resource may not state that it is published in 2013, but by the fact
that it is on my desk waiting to be cataloged in 2013, I can conclude that
it was indeed published in 2013, despite the presence of a copyright date
of 2014. Moreover, I would argue that the RDA definition of publication
date is consistent with this line of thought, as we know the resource was
released in 2013.

 Date of Publication: A date associated with the publication, release, or
issuing of a resource.

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Lisa Hatt
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 2:45 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

On 3/28/2013 8:07 AM, Will Evans  wrote:


Rules or no rules, shouldn't the record reflect the reality of the
situation?!

264#1 $c [2013]
264#4 $c (c) 2014


500 Publication received by cataloging agency in 2013. $ MBAt


I'm puzzled by this approach, which seems to second-guess the publisher's
intent. Unless there's something we haven't been told, I don't get the
idea that the resource itself makes any statement about having been
published in 2013. If a cataloger first encountered this item in 2014+,
they'd have no reason to believe it was published in anything other than
2014, because that's the date printed on the thing itself, yes?

(I know there are reverse cases where a later ed. such as trade pbk.
does not actually state its publication date and simply retains the
copyright of the first hc ed., resulting in situations like [2002],
c2001 in AACR2. But in that case other information supports the choice of
supplied date, I think.)

Rare books might be different, and I am no RDA guru, but my feeling would
be to go with what Deborah recommended.

--
Lisa Hatt
Cataloging
De Anza College Library
408-864-8459

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[Greta de Groat]

Agreed, they are different elements so it is not redundant.  In 
addition,  I am mostly cataloging materials where there is no formal 
publication statement, just a copyright statement.  I think it will be 
less confusing to users and to copy catalogers if i actually have a date 
on the piece, to indicate that someplace on the record, whether in the 
264 as a copyright date or in a note.  Just a bracketed date of 
publication is quite ambiguous--it can mean that you inferred the date 
from a stated copyright date, that you inferred the date from somewhere 
else in the item, or that you just guessed.  So a copy cataloger coming 
upon the record doesn't know whether the piece actually has a date on it 
or not, making it more challenging to decide if they have the right record.


Greta de Groat
Stanford University Libraries

On 3/28/2013 11:15 AM, Snow, Karen wrote:

Steven Arakawa wrote:

"I'm aware that the copyright date might be considered important by rare 
book/special collections cataloging, but I don't think the rare book perspective should 
drive general cataloging practices."

I don't mean to sound belligerent, but isn't this a bit short-sighted? I 
realize that we can't put *everything* into bibliographic records and we can't 
always predict what will be useful in the future, but copyright information 
will likely be important for many years to come. Why not include the copyright 
date now so that future generations can use this information for retrieval? 
Let's be honest, how much additional time is needed to add a copyright date if 
it's right there on the item? I am genuinelyconfused why this is considered 
extraneous information.

Warm regards,

Karen Snow, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Graduate School of Library&  Information Science
Dominican University
7900 West Division Street
River Forest, IL  60305
ks...@dom.edu
708-524-6077 (office)
708-524-6657 (fax)

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[Will Evans]

I am not a RDA guru either and perhaps I am too rare book centric in my
thinking, but I do not understand the need to perpetuate the myth that the
publication date is 2014, when the resource was clearly published in 2013.
The resource may not state that it is published in 2013, but by the fact
that it is on my desk waiting to be cataloged in 2013, I can conclude that
it was indeed published in 2013, despite the presence of a copyright date
of 2014. Moreover, I would argue that the RDA definition of publication
date is consistent with this line of thought, as we know the resource was
released in 2013.

  Date of Publication: A date associated with the publication, release, or
issuing of a resource.

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Lisa Hatt
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 2:45 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

On 3/28/2013 8:07 AM, Will Evans  wrote:

> Rules or no rules, shouldn't the record reflect the reality of the
> situation?!
>
> 264#1 $c [2013]
> 264#4 $c (c) 2014
>
>
> 500 Publication received by cataloging agency in 2013. $ MBAt

I'm puzzled by this approach, which seems to second-guess the publisher's
intent. Unless there's something we haven't been told, I don't get the
idea that the resource itself makes any statement about having been
published in 2013. If a cataloger first encountered this item in 2014+,
they'd have no reason to believe it was published in anything other than
2014, because that's the date printed on the thing itself, yes?

(I know there are reverse cases where a later ed. such as trade pbk.
does not actually state its publication date and simply retains the
copyright of the first hc ed., resulting in situations like [2002],
c2001 in AACR2. But in that case other information supports the choice of
supplied date, I think.)

Rare books might be different, and I am no RDA guru, but my feeling would
be to go with what Deborah recommended.

--
Lisa Hatt
Cataloging
De Anza College Library
408-864-8459

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[Patricia Sayre-McCoy]

But what about the cataloger who received the book in 2013? And the patron who 
used it last week but it can't be this book because this book hasn't been 
published yet? I makes less sense to pretend that the book wasn't published for 
8 months than to include a bracked publication date and make it clear when the 
book was actually available. 
Pat

Patricia Sayre-McCoy
Head, Law Cataloging and Serials
D'Angelo Law Library
University of Chicago
773-702-9620
p...@uchicago.edu


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Lisa Hatt
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:45 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

On 3/28/2013 8:07 AM, Will Evans  wrote:

> Rules or no rules, shouldn't the record reflect the reality of the
> situation?!
>
> 264#1 $c [2013]
> 264#4 $c (c) 2014
>
>
> 500 Publication received by cataloging agency in 2013. $ MBAt

I'm puzzled by this approach, which seems to second-guess the 
publisher's intent. Unless there's something we haven't been told, I 
don't get the idea that the resource itself makes any statement about 
having been published in 2013. If a cataloger first encountered this 
item in 2014+, they'd have no reason to believe it was published in 
anything other than 2014, because that's the date printed on the thing 
itself, yes?

(I know there are reverse cases where a later ed. such as trade pbk. 
does not actually state its publication date and simply retains the 
copyright of the first hc ed., resulting in situations like [2002], 
c2001 in AACR2. But in that case other information supports the choice 
of supplied date, I think.)

Rare books might be different, and I am no RDA guru, but my feeling 
would be to go with what Deborah recommended.

-- 
Lisa Hatt
Cataloging
De Anza College Library
408-864-8459

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[Goldfarb, Kathie]

I agree.  I think if the publication and copyright dates are different, it is 
desirable to add both.  

kathie

Kathleen Goldfarb
Technical Services Librarian
College of the Mainland
Texas City, TX 77539
409 933 8202

 Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email.



-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Snow, Karen
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:16 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

Steven Arakawa wrote:

"I'm aware that the copyright date might be considered important by rare 
book/special collections cataloging, but I don't think the rare book 
perspective should drive general cataloging practices."

I don't mean to sound belligerent, but isn't this a bit short-sighted? I 
realize that we can't put *everything* into bibliographic records and we can't 
always predict what will be useful in the future, but copyright information 
will likely be important for many years to come. Why not include the copyright 
date now so that future generations can use this information for retrieval? 
Let's be honest, how much additional time is needed to add a copyright date if 
it's right there on the item? I am genuinelyconfused why this is considered 
extraneous information. 

Warm regards,

Karen Snow, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Graduate School of Library & Information Science Dominican University
7900 West Division Street
River Forest, IL  60305
ks...@dom.edu
708-524-6077 (office)
708-524-6657 (fax)

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[Goldfarb, Kathie]

I made a typo when I first sent this out, I did mean to have the 264 with 
publication date of [2013]  (though I guess it should be [2013?], since it does 
not appear anywhere on the book itself, 

Since I have the book in hand, I would consider that to mean that is was 
published this year (or earlier), not in 2014.

kathie

Kathleen Goldfarb
Technical Services Librarian
College of the Mainland
Texas City, TX 77539
409 933 8202

 Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email.



-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Lisa Hatt
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:45 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

On 3/28/2013 8:07 AM, Will Evans  wrote:

> Rules or no rules, shouldn't the record reflect the reality of the 
> situation?!
>
> 264#1 $c [2013]
> 264#4 $c (c) 2014
>
>
> 500 Publication received by cataloging agency in 2013. $ MBAt

I'm puzzled by this approach, which seems to second-guess the publisher's 
intent. Unless there's something we haven't been told, I don't get the idea 
that the resource itself makes any statement about having been published in 
2013. If a cataloger first encountered this item in 2014+, they'd have no 
reason to believe it was published in anything other than 2014, because that's 
the date printed on the thing itself, yes?

(I know there are reverse cases where a later ed. such as trade pbk. 
does not actually state its publication date and simply retains the copyright 
of the first hc ed., resulting in situations like [2002],
c2001 in AACR2. But in that case other information supports the choice of 
supplied date, I think.)

Rare books might be different, and I am no RDA guru, but my feeling would be to 
go with what Deborah recommended.

--
Lisa Hatt
Cataloging
De Anza College Library
408-864-8459

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[Lisa Hatt]

On 3/28/2013 8:07 AM, Will Evans  wrote:

> Rules or no rules, shouldn't the record reflect the reality of the
> situation?!
>
> 264#1 $c [2013]
> 264#4 $c (c) 2014
>
>
> 500 Publication received by cataloging agency in 2013. $ MBAt

I'm puzzled by this approach, which seems to second-guess the 
publisher's intent. Unless there's something we haven't been told, I 
don't get the idea that the resource itself makes any statement about 
having been published in 2013. If a cataloger first encountered this 
item in 2014+, they'd have no reason to believe it was published in 
anything other than 2014, because that's the date printed on the thing 
itself, yes?

(I know there are reverse cases where a later ed. such as trade pbk. 
does not actually state its publication date and simply retains the 
copyright of the first hc ed., resulting in situations like [2002], 
c2001 in AACR2. But in that case other information supports the choice 
of supplied date, I think.)

Rare books might be different, and I am no RDA guru, but my feeling 
would be to go with what Deborah recommended.

-- 
Lisa Hatt
Cataloging
De Anza College Library
408-864-8459

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[Deborah Fritz]

I agree with Will about adding an explanatory Note on Copyright date . 

Adding an explanatory note could be useful to reveal that the contents of
the resource are actually somewhat older than the
publication-supplied-from-copyright implies. Other wording I have seen for
this is: 
500$a Resource available in 2013.

And I agree with Karen that adding the question mark will indicate that in
this case we are knowingly not using the copyright date to supply the
publication date.

I think that adding the copyright date, in this particular situation, helps
to make it clear to other catalogers that you have what they have. But I
also think copyrights are very useful for figuring out when the contents of
a resource were actually written, etc.; not always, but often enough to be
useful, I think.

So, you could do whichever of the following *you* think is most useful:

With no explanations:
008 s2014,
264 #1 $c [2014]

With explanations:
008 t2014,2014
264 #1 $c [2014?]
264 #4 $c (c)2014
500$a Resource available in 2013.

Or something in between:
008 s2014,
264 #1 $c [2014?]

You could also add the explanatory note when you have a publication date
that is later than the date you received a resource, even though you must
give the publication date provided in the resource. So, when the publication
date is a year later, you could do whichever of the following you think is
most useful:
008 s2014
264 #1 $c 2014

Or 

008 s2014,
264 #1 $c 2014
500$a Resource available in 2013.


Deborah
-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  
Deborah Fritz
TMQ, Inc.
debo...@marcofquality.com
www.marcofquality.com

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Will Evans

Rules or no rules, shouldn't the record reflect the reality of the
situation?!

264#1 $c [2013]
264#4 $c (c) 2014

500 Publication received by cataloging agency in 2013. $ MBAt

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Snow, Karen
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 10:43 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

Shouldn't there be a question mark inserted as well since the publication
date is probable, but unknown? (rules 1.9.2.3 and 2.8.6.6)

264 #1 $c [2014?]
264 #4 $c (c)2014

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Deborah Fritz
[debo...@marcofquality.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 9:32 AM

However, there is an LC PCC PS for 2.8.6.6 that says "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."

And this is a carryover from an LCRI that said, basically, the same thing.

So, I would recommend:
264 #1 $c [2014]
264 #4 $c (c)2014

Adding the Copyright Date in this case, would help to explain the choice of
the supplied Date of Publication

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[Snow, Karen]

Steven Arakawa wrote:

"I'm aware that the copyright date might be considered important by rare 
book/special collections cataloging, but I don't think the rare book 
perspective should drive general cataloging practices."

I don't mean to sound belligerent, but isn't this a bit short-sighted? I 
realize that we can't put *everything* into bibliographic records and we can't 
always predict what will be useful in the future, but copyright information 
will likely be important for many years to come. Why not include the copyright 
date now so that future generations can use this information for retrieval? 
Let's be honest, how much additional time is needed to add a copyright date if 
it's right there on the item? I am genuinelyconfused why this is considered 
extraneous information. 

Warm regards,

Karen Snow, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Graduate School of Library & Information Science
Dominican University
7900 West Division Street
River Forest, IL  60305
ks...@dom.edu
708-524-6077 (office)
708-524-6657 (fax)

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[Arakawa, Steven]

Per LC PCC PS 2.8.6.6  adding the copyright 264 _4 field is optional as long as 
264 _1 doesn't have [date of publication not identified]. LC training's best 
practice is to supply an inferred date instead of [date of publication not 
identified] since when the "not identified" filler is used, RDA requires the 
additional transcription of a distributor or manufacturer 264 if either has an 
explicit date, or, lacking distribution or manufacturer dates, as a last 
resort, the copyright date. Optionally you could create additional 264s for 
distributor, manufacturer, and copyright date even if you have an inferred date 
of publication, but I do not recommend the option to my trainees. It seems to 
me the whole point of providing bracketed inferred data in 264 _1 is so you 
don't have to create additional 264s. I'm aware that the copyright date might 
be considered important by rare book/special collections cataloging, but I 
don't think the rare book perspective should drive general cataloging practices.

Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation  
Catalog & Metada Services   
Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University  
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 
(203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu




-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Fritz
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 10:33 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

However, there is an LC PCC PS for 2.8.6.6 that says "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."

And this is a carryover from an LCRI that said, basically, the same thing.

So, I would recommend:
264 #1 $c [2014]
264 #4 $c (c)2014

Adding the Copyright Date in this case, would help to explain the choice of the 
supplied Date of Publication

Deborah

-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  
Deborah Fritz
TMQ, Inc.
debo...@marcofquality.com
www.marcofquality.com


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jenny Wright
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 9:52 AM

My understanding is that if the best information you have for a publication 
date is the copyright date, then the appropriate 264s would be:
264 #1 $c [2014]
264 #4 $c (c)2014

But if you are supplying the publication date and believe 2013 would be more 
accurate, then
264 #1 $c [2013]
264 #4 $c (c)2014

would be perfectly correct, too.
Regards

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Goldfarb, Kathie
Sent: 28 March 2013 13:48
The book I have in hand lists a copyright date of 2014. 

Should the 264 be:

264  1  ...$c [2013]
264  4  4a @2014

Or

264  1  $c [2014]
No 264   4

I am leaning toward the second, since many libraries may receive this book in 
2014, and the first option might be confusing, since they would not know for a 
fact that some were distributed in 2013.

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[J. McRee Elrod]

Kathie asked:


>The book I have in hand lists a copyright date of 2014. 
>
>Should the 264 be:
>
>264  1  ...$c [2013]
>264  4  4a @2014
>Or
>264  1  $c [2014]
>No 264   4

I would agree with you on your second choice, for the reason you give.
Libraries receiving the book after January would not know some
received it earlier.  Just consider it an early release in advance of
official publication.

The first choice seems "nasty nice", as my Granny referred to the
mistress of the neighbouring plantation, who had  the dust washed off
the front of her house daily.


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

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[John Williams]

I am shocked. I thought (as Patricia said) that this was exactly the situation 
the new rules were designed for.

Yours, a chastened,

John Williams
Technical Services Librarian
Robert H. Evans Library
Bologna, Italy

>-Original Message-
>From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
>[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Fritz
>Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:33 PM
>To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
>Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date
>
>However, there is an LC PCC PS for 2.8.6.6 that says "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."
>
>And this is a carryover from an LCRI that said, basically, the same
>thing.
>
>So, I would recommend:
>264 #1 $c [2014]
>264 #4 $c (c)2014
>
>Adding the Copyright Date in this case, would help to explain the choice
>of the supplied Date of Publication
>
>Deborah
>
>-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -
>Deborah Fritz
>TMQ, Inc.
>debo...@marcofquality.com
>www.marcofquality.com
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
>[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jenny Wright
>Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 9:52 AM
>
>My understanding is that if the best information you have for a
>publication date is the copyright date, then the appropriate 264s would
>be:
>264 #1 $c [2014]
>264 #4 $c (c)2014
>
>But if you are supplying the publication date and believe 2013 would be
>more accurate, then
>264 #1 $c [2013]
>264 #4 $c (c)2014
>
>would be perfectly correct, too.
>Regards
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
>[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Goldfarb, Kathie
>Sent: 28 March 2013 13:48
>The book I have in hand lists a copyright date of 2014.
>
>Should the 264 be:
>
>264  1  ...$c [2013]
>264  4  4a @2014
>
>Or
>
>264  1  $c [2014]
>No 264   4
>
>I am leaning toward the second, since many libraries may receive this
>book in 2014, and the first option might be confusing, since they would
>not know for a fact that some were distributed in 2013.

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[Michele Estep]

My vote would be for the 1st option, because it shows that the copyright date 
is 2014.  [2014] by itself could be confusing to a catalog user.
My 2 cents.
Thanks.













Michele Estep
Cataloging and Metadata Librarian
Savannah College of Art and Design®
Jen Library
201 E. Broughton St.
Savannah, GA 31401
T:  912.525.4659 - Fax: 912.525.4715
mes...@scad.edu - www.scad.edu

SCAD - The University for Creative Careers® NOTICE: This e-mail message and all 
attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential 
information intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this 
message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 
reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or 
its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in 
error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or by electronic mail 
and then delete this message and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you.
- Original Message -

From: "Kathie Goldfarb" 
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 9:48:11 AM
Subject: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

The book I have in hand lists a copyright date of 2014.

Should the 264 be:

264  1  ...$c [2013]
264  4  4a @2014

Or

264  1  $c [2014]
No 264   4

I am leaning toward the second, since many libraries may receive this book in 
2014, and the first option might be confusing, since they would not know for a 
fact that some were distributed in 2013.

Comments?

Thanks
kathie

Kathleen Goldfarb
Technical Services Librarian
College of the Mainland
Texas City, TX 77539
409 933 8202

 Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email.

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[Will Evans]

Rules or no rules, shouldn't the record reflect the reality of the
situation?!

264#1 $c [2013]
264#4 $c (c) 2014


500 Publication received by cataloging agency in 2013. $ MBAt


~~
Will Evans
Chief Rare Materials Catalog Librarian
Library of the Boston Athenaeum
10 1/2 Beacon Street
Boston, MA   02108

Tel:  617-227-0270 ext. 224
Fax: 617-227-5266
www.bostonathenaeum.org






-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Snow, Karen
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 10:43 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

Shouldn't there be a question mark inserted as well since the publication
date is probable, but unknown? (rules 1.9.2.3 and 2.8.6.6)

264 #1 $c [2014?]
264 #4 $c (c)2014


Karen Snow, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Graduate School of Library & Information Science Dominican University
7900 West Division Street
River Forest, IL  60305
ks...@dom.edu
708-524-6077 (office)
708-524-6657 (fax)


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Deborah Fritz
[debo...@marcofquality.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 9:32 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

However, there is an LC PCC PS for 2.8.6.6 that says "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."

And this is a carryover from an LCRI that said, basically, the same thing.

So, I would recommend:
264 #1 $c [2014]
264 #4 $c (c)2014

Adding the Copyright Date in this case, would help to explain the choice
of the supplied Date of Publication

Deborah

-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -
Deborah Fritz
TMQ, Inc.
debo...@marcofquality.com
www.marcofquality.com

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[Gene Fieg]

And just what is the patron supposed to think when he/she sees different
kinds of info.

What were those FRBR goals again?  And all for the benefit of the patron

On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Snow, Karen  wrote:

> Shouldn't there be a question mark inserted as well since the publication
> date is probable, but unknown? (rules 1.9.2.3 and 2.8.6.6)
>
> 264 #1 $c [2014?]
> 264 #4 $c (c)2014
>
>
> Karen Snow, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Graduate School of Library & Information Science
> Dominican University
> 7900 West Division Street
> River Forest, IL  60305
> ks...@dom.edu
> 708-524-6077 (office)
> 708-524-6657 (fax)
>
> 
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [
> RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Deborah Fritz [
> debo...@marcofquality.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 9:32 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date
>
> However, there is an LC PCC PS for 2.8.6.6 that says "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."
>
> And this is a carryover from an LCRI that said, basically, the same thing.
>
> So, I would recommend:
> 264 #1 $c [2014]
> 264 #4 $c (c)2014
>
> Adding the Copyright Date in this case, would help to explain the choice
> of the supplied Date of Publication
>
> Deborah
>
> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -
> Deborah Fritz
> TMQ, Inc.
> debo...@marcofquality.com
> www.marcofquality.com
>



-- 
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu

Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email.  The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University.  It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[Snow, Karen]

Shouldn't there be a question mark inserted as well since the publication date 
is probable, but unknown? (rules 1.9.2.3 and 2.8.6.6)

264 #1 $c [2014?]
264 #4 $c (c)2014


Karen Snow, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Graduate School of Library & Information Science
Dominican University
7900 West Division Street
River Forest, IL  60305
ks...@dom.edu
708-524-6077 (office)
708-524-6657 (fax)


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Deborah Fritz 
[debo...@marcofquality.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 9:32 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

However, there is an LC PCC PS for 2.8.6.6 that says "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."

And this is a carryover from an LCRI that said, basically, the same thing.

So, I would recommend:
264 #1 $c [2014]
264 #4 $c (c)2014

Adding the Copyright Date in this case, would help to explain the choice of the 
supplied Date of Publication

Deborah

-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -
Deborah Fritz
TMQ, Inc.
debo...@marcofquality.com
www.marcofquality.com

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[Deborah Fritz]

However, there is an LC PCC PS for 2.8.6.6 that says "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."

And this is a carryover from an LCRI that said, basically, the same thing.

So, I would recommend:
264 #1 $c [2014]
264 #4 $c (c)2014

Adding the Copyright Date in this case, would help to explain the choice of the 
supplied Date of Publication

Deborah

-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  
Deborah Fritz
TMQ, Inc.
debo...@marcofquality.com
www.marcofquality.com


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jenny Wright
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 9:52 AM

My understanding is that if the best information you have for a publication 
date is the copyright date, then the appropriate 264s would be:
264 #1 $c [2014]
264 #4 $c (c)2014

But if you are supplying the publication date and believe 2013 would be more 
accurate, then
264 #1 $c [2013]
264 #4 $c (c)2014

would be perfectly correct, too.
Regards

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Goldfarb, Kathie
Sent: 28 March 2013 13:48
The book I have in hand lists a copyright date of 2014. 

Should the 264 be:

264  1  ...$c [2013]
264  4  4a @2014

Or

264  1  $c [2014]
No 264   4

I am leaning toward the second, since many libraries may receive this book in 
2014, and the first option might be confusing, since they would not know for a 
fact that some were distributed in 2013.

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[Jenny Wright]

My understanding is that if the best information you have for a publication 
date is the copyright date, then the appropriate 264s would be:
264 #1 $c [2014]
264 #4 $c (c)2014

But if you are supplying the publication date and believe 2013 would be more 
accurate, then 
264 #1 $c [2013]
264 #4 $c (c)2014

would be perfectly correct, too.
Regards

Jenny Wright
Development Manager
Bibliographic Data Services Ltd.





-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Goldfarb, Kathie
Sent: 28 March 2013 13:48
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

The book I have in hand lists a copyright date of 2014. 

Should the 264 be:

264  1  ...$c [2013]
264  4  4a @2014

Or

264  1  $c [2014]
No 264   4

I am leaning toward the second, since many libraries may receive this book in 
2014, and the first option might be confusing, since they would not know for a 
fact that some were distributed in 2013.

Comments?

Thanks
kathie

Kathleen Goldfarb
Technical Services Librarian
College of the Mainland
Texas City, TX 77539
409 933 8202

 Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email.





This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[Patricia Sayre-McCoy]

I believe the first solution is exactly what RDA 264 was designed for. I think 
it's far more confusing to have only the 2014 date when we know darn well we 
got the book in 2013.
Pat


Patricia Sayre-McCoy
Head, Law Cataloging and Serials
D’Angelo Law Library
University of Chicago
773-702-9620
p...@uchicago.edu


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Goldfarb, Kathie
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 8:48 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

The book I have in hand lists a copyright date of 2014. 

Should the 264 be:

264  1  ...$c [2013]
264  4  4a @2014

Or

264  1  $c [2014]
No 264   4

I am leaning toward the second, since many libraries may receive this book in 
2014, and the first option might be confusing, since they would not know for a 
fact that some were distributed in 2013.

Comments?

Thanks
kathie

Kathleen Goldfarb
Technical Services Librarian
College of the Mainland
Texas City, TX 77539
409 933 8202

 Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email.

[RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[Goldfarb, Kathie]

The book I have in hand lists a copyright date of 2014. 

Should the 264 be:

264  1  ...$c [2013]
264  4  4a @2014

Or

264  1  $c [2014]
No 264   4

I am leaning toward the second, since many libraries may receive this book in 
2014, and the first option might be confusing, since they would not know for a 
fact that some were distributed in 2013.

Comments?

Thanks
kathie

Kathleen Goldfarb
Technical Services Librarian
College of the Mainland
Texas City, TX 77539
409 933 8202

 Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email.