Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing
Thank you for this Trina, these are very helpful and detailed. It would have taken me an eternity to get to the level of understanding that you have in your documents, the Visual version in particular, is extremely helpful. I don't mind being singled out, I singled myself out by asking the question. Thanks for offering up the fruits of your hard work to the rest of us. -Dana From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Trina Pundurs Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 5:23 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing I've noticed a fair amount of confusion about the correct way to record imprint elements under RDA (not to single out Dana; hers is just the latest example). At the risk of global humiliation, I'd like to share draft versions of a couple of documents I prepared for our local RDA training on how to assemble a 264 field for published resources. Note that these documents provide guidance only on fulfilling PCC Core requirements (as articulated in the RDA BIBCO Standard Record MAP). Narrative version: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/catalog_dept/sites/drupal6.lib.berkeley.edu.ca talog_dept/files/264_heuristic_20130510.docx Visual version (may require MS Word for proper formatting): http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/catalog_dept/sites/drupal6.lib.berkeley.edu.ca talog_dept/files/264_decision_tree_20130611.docx With all the Core statements in the Toolkit across 2.8 through 2.11, it's easy to lose sight of the order of preference: First: Publication data Then: Distribution data Then: Copyright (or phonogram) date Finally: Manufacture data It's confusing further since the MARC second indicators go in the order 1, 2, 4, 3. Very annoying! Anyway, I hope this is helpful to someone. Trina Trina Pundurs Serials Cataloger Library Collection Services University of California, Berkeley tpund...@library.berkeley.edu http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/ Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1990 On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Dana Van Meter vanme...@ias.edu wrote: [...] I admit to not having spent as much time with RDA as I should have by now, but I often catalog books which only have a copyright date and absolutely no other date-no printing date, no dated Preface or Introduction-no other dates anywhere. In most cases, the C year is the same as the year the item was received at my library. Rule 2.11 says to provide the copyright date if neither the date of publication, nor the date of distribution have been identified. Does this rule assume that you have a date of manufacture then, and that in MARC speak, the 264 you add with the copyright date would be a second 264? I'm just wondering why the lack of a date of manufacture isn't also mentioned as a condition for the C to be core in rule 2.11? In LC-PCC PS 2.8.6.6 there is an example of a book only having a C date and the C year is the year after the year in which the item was received. In the attendant example, the C date is in square brackets in a 264 _1 (without the C symbol), and a 264 _4 with |c Cdate is added. A DtSt of t is used with the same year in Date 1 and Date 2. I'm just wondering if a book with only a C date is received in the same year as the C year, if this gives any more weight to the C date also being the year of publication, and if so, can only one 264 (with second indicator of 1, and the C year in [ ] without the C symbol) be used, and a DtSt of s with only one date in the fixed fields be used? I haven't been able to find an example of having only a C date and the C date being the same as the year the item was received in either RDA or the LC-PCC policy statements, but I may just be missing it. I know that Adam Schiff recently said that if there is a C date present in the book he always records it, which I agree with, especially in cases where a C date is the only date present in the resource. I'm wondering though, just for my own understanding of RDA and the policy statements, if there is only a C year, and that year is the year in which the book was received, if that satisfies the condition laid out in LC-PCC PS 2.8.6.6, section 1: if it seems reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication date, more so than if the C date is the year after the year in which the resource was received, as seen in section 2 of LC-PCC PS 2.8.6.6. Also Deborah, in your my take on the examples, for your take on the second example, would the 500 note be a 588 note? A 588 note is used in the example in LC-PCC PS 2.10.6. If one doesn't use the actual words Description based on do you not use the 588 (Source of description note), and is a 500 (General note) more appropriate? I have not done that much cataloging in RDA yet, so I hadn't thought of adding a 5XX note to help explain my reasoning for the date (or dates) chosen for the 264 (or 264s), it does seem that a 5XX note would be very
Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing
Bob Maxwell said: Be daring :-) If it's useful, do it. That's a great philosophy! Kevin Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edumailto:k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing
Dates have always been tricky J RDA has simply added a couple of new twists to the maze (I spent over 3 hours on dates alone, in my AACR workshops-just for basics) Printing dates have always been a special challenge; my mantra about them is: “Printing doesn’t matter, changes in printing dates do not matter, printing dates simply mean the publisher ran off more copies, so printing doesn’t matter--*except* for: - A first printing date (as a good indication of when the book was published, e.g., it could not have been published before it was printed, and once it was printed it would have been published as quickly as possible (no point in warehousing millions of copies of books) unless some event prevented that from happening) - A significantly different printing date (as a possibly interesting indication that a book has remained in print for a long time, and that you have a fresher copy of the actual item than the publication date would suggest) - When a printing date is not first printing, but is all that you have (at least you know that your book could not have been published after that printing date) Other than these exceptions, printing doesn’t matter, it really does not matter!” I know, it is a long mantra, but the short form works well: “Printing doesn’t matter (except …)” So, with that in mind (printing doesn’t matter), whether you are copying or creating records, the other main thing to remember is the order of preference that Trina pointed out: 1. Date of Publication 2. Date of Distribution 3. Copyright Date 4. Date of Manufacture (Printing) 5. No Date Identified So, absolutely use the copyright date to supply a date of publication, when that is all that is available. But, if a printing date is also available, and is a first printing date, then remember that LC-PCC PS for 2.10.6 http: //access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp2target=lcps2-1702#lcps2-170 2 B) says that it must seem reasonable to assume that the copyright date is a likely publication date, and if the book was printed before or after the copyright date, then ask yourself if it is actually reasonable that the book was published when it was copyrighted. Dana also points out that LC-PCC PS for 2.10.6 http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp2target=lcps2-1702#lcp s2-1702 says to use the 588 “Description based on” note: “A date of manufacture may also be recorded as part of a manufacture statement, or as part of a Note on issue, part, or iteration used as the basis for identification of a resource (See 2.20.13), if determined useful by the cataloger” I would very much appreciate clarification about this, because when I read 2.20.13.1 it does not seem to me that we are supposed to use this note for single part monographs: “A note on issue, part, or iteration used as the basis for identification of the resource▼ is a note identifying what was used to identify the resource: the issue or part of a multipart monograph or serial or the iteration of an integrating resource” The scope note seems to me to be fairly clearly restricting the use of the note to multipart monographs, serials, and integrating resources. Does anyone know whether this Scope instruction is in the process of being changed to allow for use for a single part monograph? If this element (Note on Issue, Part, or Iteration Used as the Basis for Identification of the Resource) can be used for single part monographs, then it could certainly be used instead of the 500 note and say something like “Description based on first printing, 2013”. Yup, dates are tricky. Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. mailto:debo...@marcofquality.com debo...@marcofquality.com http://www.marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.com From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 2:00 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing Thank you for doing this Deborah. I find providing the 264 subfield c to be tricky these days, and it seems that perhaps the rules and/or LC-PCC PSs might need to be tweaked a little to make this clearer for all of us, so we don’t see this wide variation in our records. I cringe every time I have a book which doesn’t have a clear date of publication. I’m at a former RLIN institution, so we make Institution Records (IRs), so I can make a change in my own record if I disagree with what is in the master, but I’m wondering what impact this difference of interpretation will mean in OCLC? I don’t know a lot about how OCLC does matching to determine if there are duplicate masters, but I know they are to be avoided. I suppose that institutions that don’t make IRs can just edit the record locally, but is adding on an IR that differs in terms of what date in the first listed 264
Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing
This is a catch-up email. I try to understand Deborah's summary. I read both LC-PCC PS for 2.10.6http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp2target=lcps2-1702#lcps2-1702 and 2.8.6.6. They actually have the same information for a item lacking a publication date contains a copyright and a date of manufacture and the years differ. The policy does say supply a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright date in square brackets. 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. So for the Example 1, the inferred publication date should be [2013]. The printing date 2012 may be recorded in a manufacture statement, or a 588 description based note. Example 1 Verso of book reads: Copyright © 2013 First printing, August 2012 ISBN 9780321832740 Deborah mentioned *C.1*. But the upper category *C.* does say that If an item lacking a publication date contains *only a date of manufacture*. The Example 1 is not an applicable case, since it contains both copyright and manufacture date. I hope that my understanding is correct. Any correction would be appreciated. Thanks to everyone. Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Deborah Fritz debo...@marcofquality.comwrote: My thanks to the folks who sent in feedback on how they would handle my two date examples. As I suspected, there was considerable variation on how the dates would be entered for these resources—here is a summary, with some paraphrasing, and extrapolating, so hopefully I have interpreted all the replies correctly: ** ** Example 1 Verso of book reads: ** ** Copyright © 2013 First printing, August 2012 ISBN 9780321832740 ** ** Use © to supply PubD = 2 264_1 … $c[2013] ** ** Use © to supply PubD, add © = 1 264_1 … $c[2013] 264_4 $c©2013 Use 1st Prt to supply PubD, add © = 4 264_1 … $c[2012] 264_4 $c©2013 ** ** Use 1st Prt to supply PubD, add PrtD, add © = 1 264_1 … $c[2012] 264_3 … $c2012. 264_4 $c©2013 ** ** Enter 1st Prt as PubD = 2 264_1 … $c2012. -- Here is my take on the 1st example: LC-PCC PS for 2.10.6http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp2target=lcps2-1702#lcps2-1702 B) says: “If an item lacking a publication date contains a copyright date and a date of manufacture and the years differ, supply a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright date, in square brackets, if it seems reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication date” ** ** C.1) says: “Supply a date of publication that corresponds to the manufacture date, in square brackets, if it seems reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication date. For books, this means that the item is assumed to be the first printing of the edition. Also record the manufacture date as part of a manufacture statement if determined useful by the cataloger.” ** ** Email correspondence with LC clarified that since, for books, the first printing of the edition is assumed to be a likely publication date, if the item lacking a publication date contains a copyright date and a date of manufacture and the years differ, supply a date of publication that corresponds to the first printing date, in square brackets, since it is not reasonable to assume that the copyright date is a likely publication date, since it is logical to assume that the first printing date is the more likely publication date (the resource cannot be published until it is printed, once it is printed, it is likely to be immediately published, and publishers have been known to put later copyright dates on resources) ** ** I did ask LC to make this a bit more obvious in the LC PCC PS, but I’m not sure I convinced them that this would be necessary. ** ** So, based on this, I would use 1st Prt to supply PubD, add PrtD, add © ** and** I would also add the note to explain why I used the printing date rather than the © date (to help copy catalogers, not patrons): 264_1 … $c[2012] 264_3 … $c2012. 264_4 $c©2013 500 $aFirst printing, 2013. ** ** -- Example 2 Verso of book reads: ** ** Copyright © 2007 First printed in paperback 2008 ISBN 977-0-300-14333-1 (pbk) ISBN 978-0-300-12078-3 (alk. Paper) ** ** Share hardcover record, but otherwise use 1st Prt to supply PubD = 3 264_1 … $c[2008] ** ** Share hardcover record, but otherwise use 1st Prt to supply PubD, add © = 4 264_1 … $c[2008] 264_4 $c©2007 ** ** Share hardcover record, but otherwise use 1st Prt to supply PubD, add
Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing
Thank you for doing this Deborah. I find providing the 264 subfield c to be tricky these days, and it seems that perhaps the rules and/or LC-PCC PSs might need to be tweaked a little to make this clearer for all of us, so we don't see this wide variation in our records. I cringe every time I have a book which doesn't have a clear date of publication. I'm at a former RLIN institution, so we make Institution Records (IRs), so I can make a change in my own record if I disagree with what is in the master, but I'm wondering what impact this difference of interpretation will mean in OCLC? I don't know a lot about how OCLC does matching to determine if there are duplicate masters, but I know they are to be avoided. I suppose that institutions that don't make IRs can just edit the record locally, but is adding on an IR that differs in terms of what date in the first listed 264, and in the fixed fields a problem? Or is making a new master the better option? Are we going to end up with multiple master records because of 264 |c differences of interpretation? I admit to not having spent as much time with RDA as I should have by now, but I often catalog books which only have a copyright date and absolutely no other date-no printing date, no dated Preface or Introduction-no other dates anywhere. In most cases, the C year is the same as the year the item was received at my library. Rule 2.11 says to provide the copyright date if neither the date of publication, nor the date of distribution have been identified. Does this rule assume that you have a date of manufacture then, and that in MARC speak, the 264 you add with the copyright date would be a second 264? I'm just wondering why the lack of a date of manufacture isn't also mentioned as a condition for the C to be core in rule 2.11? In LC-PCC PS 2.8.6.6 there is an example of a book only having a C date and the C year is the year after the year in which the item was received. In the attendant example, the C date is in square brackets in a 264 _1 (without the C symbol), and a 264 _4 with |c Cdate is added. A DtSt of t is used with the same year in Date 1 and Date 2. I'm just wondering if a book with only a C date is received in the same year as the C year, if this gives any more weight to the C date also being the year of publication, and if so, can only one 264 (with second indicator of 1, and the C year in [ ] without the C symbol) be used, and a DtSt of s with only one date in the fixed fields be used? I haven't been able to find an example of having only a C date and the C date being the same as the year the item was received in either RDA or the LC-PCC policy statements, but I may just be missing it. I know that Adam Schiff recently said that if there is a C date present in the book he always records it, which I agree with, especially in cases where a C date is the only date present in the resource. I'm wondering though, just for my own understanding of RDA and the policy statements, if there is only a C year, and that year is the year in which the book was received, if that satisfies the condition laid out in LC-PCC PS 2.8.6.6, section 1: if it seems reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication date, more so than if the C date is the year after the year in which the resource was received, as seen in section 2 of LC-PCC PS 2.8.6.6. Also Deborah, in your my take on the examples, for your take on the second example, would the 500 note be a 588 note? A 588 note is used in the example in LC-PCC PS 2.10.6. If one doesn't use the actual words Description based on do you not use the 588 (Source of description note), and is a 500 (General note) more appropriate? I have not done that much cataloging in RDA yet, so I hadn't thought of adding a 5XX note to help explain my reasoning for the date (or dates) chosen for the 264 (or 264s), it does seem that a 5XX note would be very helpful, but not having any experience with the 588 field I'm just wondering if it would be used in this case rather than a 500 field. Thank you again Deborah for bringing this up. I would appreciate your advice for my questions, and that of any one else who would like to respond. Thanks very much, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Fritz Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 1:41 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing My thanks to the folks who sent in feedback on how they would handle my two date examples. As I suspected, there was considerable variation on how the dates would be entered for these resources-here is a summary, with some paraphrasing, and extrapolating, so hopefully I have interpreted all the replies correctly: Example 1 Verso
Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing
My thanks to the folks who sent in feedback on how they would handle my two date examples. As I suspected, there was considerable variation on how the dates would be entered for these resources-here is a summary, with some paraphrasing, and extrapolating, so hopefully I have interpreted all the replies correctly: Example 1 Verso of book reads: Copyright C 2013 First printing, August 2012 ISBN 9780321832740 Use C to supply PubD = 2 264_1 . $c[2013] Use C to supply PubD, add C = 1 264_1 . $c[2013] 264_4 $cC2013 Use 1st Prt to supply PubD, add C = 4 264_1 . $c[2012] 264_4 $cC2013 Use 1st Prt to supply PubD, add PrtD, add C = 1 264_1 . $c[2012] 264_3 . $c2012. 264_4 $cC2013 Enter 1st Prt as PubD = 2 264_1 . $c2012. -- Here is my take on the 1st example: LC-PCC PS for 2.10.6 http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp2target=lcps2-1702#lcp s2-1702 B) says: If an item lacking a publication date contains a copyright date and a date of manufacture and the years differ, supply a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright date, in square brackets, if it seems reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication date C.1) says: Supply a date of publication that corresponds to the manufacture date, in square brackets, if it seems reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication date. For books, this means that the item is assumed to be the first printing of the edition. Also record the manufacture date as part of a manufacture statement if determined useful by the cataloger. Email correspondence with LC clarified that since, for books, the first printing of the edition is assumed to be a likely publication date, if the item lacking a publication date contains a copyright date and a date of manufacture and the years differ, supply a date of publication that corresponds to the first printing date, in square brackets, since it is not reasonable to assume that the copyright date is a likely publication date, since it is logical to assume that the first printing date is the more likely publication date (the resource cannot be published until it is printed, once it is printed, it is likely to be immediately published, and publishers have been known to put later copyright dates on resources) I did ask LC to make this a bit more obvious in the LC PCC PS, but I'm not sure I convinced them that this would be necessary. So, based on this, I would use 1st Prt to supply PubD, add PrtD, add C *and* I would also add the note to explain why I used the printing date rather than the C date (to help copy catalogers, not patrons): 264_1 . $c[2012] 264_3 . $c2012. 264_4 $cC2013 500 $aFirst printing, 2013. -- Example 2 Verso of book reads: Copyright C 2007 First printed in paperback 2008 ISBN 977-0-300-14333-1 (pbk) ISBN 978-0-300-12078-3 (alk. Paper) Share hardcover record, but otherwise use 1st Prt to supply PubD = 3 264_1 . $c[2008] Share hardcover record, but otherwise use 1st Prt to supply PubD, add C = 4 264_1 . $c[2008] 264_4 $cC2007 Share hardcover record, but otherwise use 1st Prt to supply PubD, add PrtD, add C = 1 264_1 . $c[2008] 264_3 . $c2008. 264_4 $cC2007 Share hardcover record, but otherwise use 1st Prt as PubD, do not add C because would be confusing = 1 264_1 . $c2008. Here is my take on the 2nd example: First, I agree that we would, in the past, add the paperback to the hardcover record, if the only difference is the binding; but I have to say that the date difference always bothered me (especially if it actually said Paperback published . rather than Paperback printing . ). I know that we are currently in the 'don't rock the boat' mode while we are still in MARC, and so will probably continue with this practice, but I am even more uneasy with it, under RDA thinking. But, let's say there was some indication of a difference, e.g., a reader's guide added to the paperback. In that case, I would apply the same reasoning as before from LC-PCC PS for 2.10.6 http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp2target=lcps2-1702#lcp s2-1702 and use 1st Prt to supply PubD, add C and, again, add an explanatory note about the date I used to supply the PubD. 264_1 . $c[2008] 264_3 . $c2008. 264_4 $cC2007 500 $aFirst printing, 2008. -- It is interesting that 3 responses said to use the C date to supply the PubD , for the 1st example, but no responses said to do that for the 2nd example; I assume that is because the C was the latest date in the 1st example. To me, this indicates that clarification at the LC-PCC PS for 2.10.6 http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp2target=lcps2-1702#lcp s2-1702 would be very helpful. Thanks again to
Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing
We would probably use '[2012?]' as the conjectural publication date for example 1. Our rule is to use the best evidence readily available, which is often but not invariably the copyright. I've checked Amazon in similar cases and have always found that their date, which presumably reflects availability to the public, corresponds to the printing date rather than the copyright date. But having checked Amazon I would add a 500 note, 'Publication date from bookseller's website', so I would not really be using either copyright or printing date as the basis for the conjecture. We record all supplied dates as conjectural unless they come from the publisher's website or the ISBN agency or something equally authoritative. We always record the copyright date if found on the resource. For example 2, like most others we would give the date or conjectural date of paperback issue if making a separate record for the paperback but would often just add the paperback ISBN to the hardback record and record the paperback date only as a holdings note. Best wishes, Bernadette *** Bernadette O'Reilly Catalogue Support Librarian 01865 2-77134 Bodleian Libraries, Osney One Building Osney Mead Oxford OX2 0EW. *** From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell Sent: 18 June 2013 21:00 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing For Example 1 I would supply 2013 as the publication date. Books are always printed before they are published. Presumably these were printed and delivered to the publisher in late 2012. Then they were published, i.e., issued to the public. That could easily have happened the following year. To me the copyright date is evidence here of the publisher's intention. For Example 2, assuming I am creating a separate record for the paperback, I would supply 2008. 2007 is the copyright date in the underlying work or expression, which was first published in 2007; the paperback was published the following year, given the printing evidence. On the other hand, if I decide the paperback is within the same manifestation as the hardback, I would just include it on the original 2007 record. Depends on if there is a size/pagination difference, how specialized my library is, etc. 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 Deborah Fritz Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 7:32 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing Dear RDA-L Folks, I would very much like to get some broad feedback from as many of you as possible, on how you would handle the dates for following two resources: Example 1 Verso of book reads: Copyright (c) 2013 First printing, August 2012 ISBN 9780321832740 Which date would you use to supply the publication date: a) the copyright date b) the first printing date Would you add any other date information? - Example 2 Verso of book reads: Copyright (c) 2007 First printed in paperback 2008 ISBN 977-0-300-14333-1 (pbk) ISBN 978-0-300-12078-3 (alk. Paper) The hardcover version was published in 2007 Which date would you use to supply the publication date for the paperback that you have: c) the copyright date d) the first printing (paperback) date Would you add any other date information? - I'm trying to get a sense of how much variation we can expect to see in copy cataloging records, for this type of situation. If you would rather not share with the list, then would you please reply to me personally at: debo...@marcofquality.com? Thanks very much, Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. debo...@marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.com
Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing
Example 1: It depends on how you interpret First printing, August 2012. While this might be the date of manufacture, it might also be the date of publication of the first printing -- and I was taught that an edition was described from a copy of the first printing of that edition. So I would probably give 2012 without brackets as the date of publication. The copyright date, in this case, is not a core element; different institutions will have different policies about whether to include it. Example 2: As others have noted, it depends on whether you consider the paperback as a distinct manifestation. If so, then the date would be 2008. As with the previous example, I think I might interpret this as the date of publication of the paperback edition and give 2008 without brackets; although, admittedly, the wording in this case does tend to support treating 2008 as the date of printing. I would probably give some indication of when the work was first published. I would probably give this in a note Hardcover edition published in 2007; I doubt that I would give the copyright date on a record for the paperback; it would seem only to confuse the issue of when the paperback was published. If you are not making a separate description for the paperback, then I would not record the 2008 date anywhere in the record -- unless I added a note Paperback edition published in 2008. John - Original Message - | From: Deborah Fritz debo...@marcofquality.com | To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA | Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:31:46 AM | Subject: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing | Dear RDA-L Folks, | I would very much like to get some broad feedback from as many of you | as possible, on how you would handle the dates for following two | resources: | Example 1 | Verso of book reads: | Copyright © 2013 | First printing, August 2012 | ISBN 9780321832740 | Which date would you use to supply the publication date: | a) the copyright date | b) the first printing date | Would you add any other date information? | - | Example 2 | Verso of book reads: | Copyright © 2007 | First printed in paperback 2008 | ISBN 977-0-300-14333-1 (pbk) | ISBN 978-0-300-12078-3 (alk. Paper) | The hardcover version was published in 2007 | Which date would you use to supply the publication date for the | paperback that you have: | c) the copyright date | d) the first printing (paperback) date | Would you add any other date information? | - | I’m trying to get a sense of how much variation we can expect to see | in copy cataloging records, for this type of situation. | If you would rather not share with the list, then would you please | reply to me personally at: debo...@marcofquality.com ? | Thanks very much, | Deborah | - - - - - - - - | Deborah Fritz | TMQ, Inc. | debo...@marcofquality.com | www.marcofquality.com
Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing
- Original Message - From: JOHN C ATTIG jx...@psu.edu To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 8:02:42 AM Subject: Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing Example 1: It depends on how you interpret First printing, August 2012. While this might be the date of manufacture, it might also be the date of publication of the first printing -- and I was taught that an edition was described from a copy of the first printing of that edition. So I would probably give 2012 without brackets as the date of publication. ... John - Original Message - If you interpret it as the date of publication, wouldn't you put: August 2012 ? I only got a couple of replies to my previous question about when to interpret fuller dates as publication dates and when to interpret them as dates of transmittal, which only indicated that the two are sometimes different but not when to know that a date is one or the other without additional evidence like a different copyright date or a later date recorded in a GPO number or bibliography or something. RDA seems to want us to record the date as given, though, and i'm assuming that that was the JSC's intent when they included the May 2000 example at 2.8.6.3. It's understandable that we are reluctant to record full dates given that under AACR2 we were just to record the year, and that made it easier to deal with questions like this one about the manufacture date. But given our inhibition as well as the mysterious LC-PCC-PS that i cited in my earlier question, it seems like we're not really settled on when we record full dates as dates of publication. To rephrase my question, if i've got August 21, 2012 on my title page and no other date on the piece and no reason to assume that that date is inaccurate (or a date of an HTML document saying Posted June 3, 2013), why would i assume that that date is *not* the publication date? Any more than i would assume that First printing, August 2012 is not a publication date? Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries
Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing
I sort agree. If that is the only date and it says printing, I will use that as the publication date. Maybe with a ?, but not likely. On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Greta de Groat gdegr...@stanford.eduwrote: - Original Message - From: JOHN C ATTIG jx...@psu.edu To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 8:02:42 AM Subject: Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing Example 1: It depends on how you interpret First printing, August 2012. While this might be the date of manufacture, it might also be the date of publication of the first printing -- and I was taught that an edition was described from a copy of the first printing of that edition. So I would probably give 2012 without brackets as the date of publication. ... John - Original Message - If you interpret it as the date of publication, wouldn't you put: August 2012 ? I only got a couple of replies to my previous question about when to interpret fuller dates as publication dates and when to interpret them as dates of transmittal, which only indicated that the two are sometimes different but not when to know that a date is one or the other without additional evidence like a different copyright date or a later date recorded in a GPO number or bibliography or something. RDA seems to want us to record the date as given, though, and i'm assuming that that was the JSC's intent when they included the May 2000 example at 2.8.6.3. It's understandable that we are reluctant to record full dates given that under AACR2 we were just to record the year, and that made it easier to deal with questions like this one about the manufacture date. But given our inhibition as well as the mysterious LC-PCC-PS that i cited in my earlier question, it seems like we're not really settled on when we record full dates as dates of publication. To rephrase my question, if i've got August 21, 2012 on my title page and no other date on the piece and no reason to assume that that date is inaccurate (or a date of an HTML document saying Posted June 3, 2013), why would i assume that that date is *not* the publication date? Any more than i would assume that First printing, August 2012 is not a publication date? Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries -- 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] No date of publication, first printing
You did say broad feedback, right? For 1st example I would use 2012, for 2nd example I would use 2008 if a record just for the paperback is made. In choosing the 1st printing dates in both instances, I have assumed the announced printing dates to be equivalent to dates of publication. The copyright dates which are not used to infer the publication dates are no longer core, may still be included in another area, especially since they differ from the dates used. My take. Jack Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville j...@franciscan.edu Deborah Fritz debo...@marcofquality.com 6/18/2013 9:31 AM Dear RDA-L Folks, I would very much like to get some broad feedback from as many of you as possible, on how you would handle the dates for following two resources: Example 1 Verso of book reads: Copyright © 2013 First printing, August 2012 ISBN 9780321832740 Which date would you use to supply the publication date: a) the copyright date b) the first printing date Would you add any other date information? - Example 2 Verso of book reads: Copyright © 2007 First printed in paperback 2008 ISBN 977-0-300-14333-1 (pbk) ISBN 978-0-300-12078-3 (alk. Paper) The hardcover version was published in 2007 Which date would you use to supply the publication date for the paperback that you have: c) the copyright date d) the first printing (paperback) date Would you add any other date information? - I’m trying to get a sense of how much variation we can expect to see in copy cataloging records, for this type of situation. If you would rather not share with the list, then would you please reply to me personally at: debo...@marcofquality.com? Thanks very much, Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. debo...@marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.com Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing
I 2nd Jack's take on it. That's exactly how I would do it. Guy Frost Associate Professor of Library Science Catalog Librarian Odum Library/Valdosta State University Valdosta, Georgia 31698-0150 229.259.5060 gfr...@valdosta.edu FDLP 0125 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Jack Wu [j...@franciscan.edu] Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 11:00 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing You did say broad feedback, right? For 1st example I would use 2012, for 2nd example I would use 2008 if a record just for the paperback is made. In choosing the 1st printing dates in both instances, I have assumed the announced printing dates to be equivalent to dates of publication. The copyright dates which are not used to infer the publication dates are no longer core, may still be included in another area, especially since they differ from the dates used. My take. Jack Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville j...@franciscan.edumailto:j...@franciscan.edu Deborah Fritz debo...@marcofquality.com 6/18/2013 9:31 AM Dear RDA-L Folks, I would very much like to get some broad feedback from as many of you as possible, on how you would handle the dates for following two resources: Example 1 Verso of book reads: Copyright © 2013 First printing, August 2012 ISBN 9780321832740 Which date would you use to supply the publication date: a) the copyright date b) the first printing date Would you add any other date information? - Example 2 Verso of book reads: Copyright © 2007 First printed in paperback 2008 ISBN 977-0-300-14333-1 (pbk) ISBN 978-0-300-12078-3 (alk. Paper) The hardcover version was published in 2007 Which date would you use to supply the publication date for the paperback that you have: c) the copyright date d) the first printing (paperback) date Would you add any other date information? - I’m trying to get a sense of how much variation we can expect to see in copy cataloging records, for this type of situation. If you would rather not share with the list, then would you please reply to me personally at: debo...@marcofquality.commailto:debo...@marcofquality.com? Thanks very much, Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. debo...@marcofquality.commailto:debo...@marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.comhttp://www.marcofquality.com Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing
For Example 1 I would supply 2013 as the publication date. Books are always printed before they are published. Presumably these were printed and delivered to the publisher in late 2012. Then they were published, i.e., issued to the public. That could easily have happened the following year. To me the copyright date is evidence here of the publisher's intention. For Example 2, assuming I am creating a separate record for the paperback, I would supply 2008. 2007 is the copyright date in the underlying work or expression, which was first published in 2007; the paperback was published the following year, given the printing evidence. On the other hand, if I decide the paperback is within the same manifestation as the hardback, I would just include it on the original 2007 record. Depends on if there is a size/pagination difference, how specialized my library is, etc. 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 Deborah Fritz Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 7:32 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing Dear RDA-L Folks, I would very much like to get some broad feedback from as many of you as possible, on how you would handle the dates for following two resources: Example 1 Verso of book reads: Copyright (c) 2013 First printing, August 2012 ISBN 9780321832740 Which date would you use to supply the publication date: a) the copyright date b) the first printing date Would you add any other date information? - Example 2 Verso of book reads: Copyright (c) 2007 First printed in paperback 2008 ISBN 977-0-300-14333-1 (pbk) ISBN 978-0-300-12078-3 (alk. Paper) The hardcover version was published in 2007 Which date would you use to supply the publication date for the paperback that you have: c) the copyright date d) the first printing (paperback) date Would you add any other date information? - I'm trying to get a sense of how much variation we can expect to see in copy cataloging records, for this type of situation. If you would rather not share with the list, then would you please reply to me personally at: debo...@marcofquality.commailto:debo...@marcofquality.com? Thanks very much, Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. debo...@marcofquality.commailto:debo...@marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.comhttp://www.marcofquality.com
Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing
On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 8:32 AM, Deborah Fritz wrote: I would very much like to get some broad feedback from as many of you as possible, on how you would handle the dates for following two resources: Example 1 Copyright (c) 2013 First printing, August 2012 I would do 264 _1 ...$c[2013] (Based on LC-PCC PS for 2.8.6.6, 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. Even though this is the 1st printing, unless I've missed something, under RDA we would still treat subsequent printings in the same way we did under AACR2, so this record could be used for the 10th printing in 2016, unchanged from the 1st printing in 2012 aside from an updated statement on the verso Copyright (c) 2013, Tenth printing, August 2016.) I would provide no additional information (aside from possibly 264 _4$c(c)2013). - Example 2 Copyright (c) 2007 First printed in paperback 2008 The hardcover version was published in 2007 Which date would you use to supply the publication date for the paperback that you have: Trickier, with the paperback versus hardcover-related issues, but if there were no other obvious differences between the 2 (which can be difficult to judge based only on the paperback in hand vs. the record for the hardcover), I think I'd still go with 264 _1 ...$c[2007] cataloged on the same record as the hardcover. If significant enough differences existed between the item in hand vs. the record for the hardcover, then I'd say it needed a new record, in which case I'd likely go with: 264 _1 ...$c[2008] more likely than in Example 1, 264 _4$cc2007 I usually don't add a 500 originally published note for paperback vs. hardcover-only differences in cases like this--usually only in cases where the publisher or title has changed (though sometimes I will include such a note, or at least leave it in when I am working with a record from someone who does put them in). I hope this helps, Bryan Baldus Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses 1-800-323-4241x402 bryan.bal...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing
Me too to Brian, with the slight variation that I would be even less likely than him to give 264 _4 in either case. Trina Pundurs Serials Cataloger Library Collection Services University of California, Berkeley tpund...@library.berkeley.edu http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/ Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1990 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Bryan Baldus bryan.bal...@quality-books.com wrote: On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 8:32 AM, Deborah Fritz wrote: I would very much like to get some broad feedback from as many of you as possible, on how you would handle the dates for following two resources: Example 1 Copyright (c) 2013 First printing, August 2012 I would do 264 _1 ...$c[2013] (Based on LC-PCC PS for 2.8.6.6, C. If an item lacking a publication date contains a copyright date and a date of manufacture and the years differ, supply a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright date, in square brackets, if it seems reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication date. Even though this is the 1st printing, unless I've missed something, under RDA we would still treat subsequent printings in the same way we did under AACR2, so this record could be used for the 10th printing in 2016, unchanged from the 1st printing in 2012 aside from an updated statement on the verso Copyright (c) 2013, Tenth printing, August 2016.) I would provide no additional information (aside from possibly 264 _4$c(c)2013). - Example 2 Copyright (c) 2007 First printed in paperback 2008 The hardcover version was published in 2007 Which date would you use to supply the publication date for the paperback that you have: Trickier, with the paperback versus hardcover-related issues, but if there were no other obvious differences between the 2 (which can be difficult to judge based only on the paperback in hand vs. the record for the hardcover), I think I'd still go with 264 _1 ...$c[2007] cataloged on the same record as the hardcover. If significant enough differences existed between the item in hand vs. the record for the hardcover, then I'd say it needed a new record, in which case I'd likely go with: 264 _1 ...$c[2008] more likely than in Example 1, 264 _4$cc2007 I usually don't add a 500 originally published note for paperback vs. hardcover-only differences in cases like this--usually only in cases where the publisher or title has changed (though sometimes I will include such a note, or at least leave it in when I am working with a record from someone who does put them in). I hope this helps, Bryan Baldus Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses 1-800-323-4241x402 bryan.bal...@quality-books.com
