Re: [RDA-L] question about dates in 264 fields

2013-01-11 Thread Arakawa, Steven
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Fritz Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 9:15 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] question about dates in 264 fields From: Resource Description

Re: [RDA-L] question about dates in 264 fields

2013-01-11 Thread Deborah Fritz
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 10:39 AM [SA]if you have a bracketed date in 264 _1 based on the copyright date, the 264 _4 is optional, if I'm interpreting

Re: [RDA-L] question about dates in 264 fields

2013-01-11 Thread Jack Wu
I do not know if LC PCC PS is interpreted correctly. However, RDA 2.8.6.6 says If the date of publication is not identified in a resource... record the copyright date, and RDA 2.11 says copyright date is a core element if...neither the date of publication ... is identified. I tend to think in

Re: [RDA-L] question about dates in 264 fields

2013-01-11 Thread Adam L. Schiff
Transcription of copyright date is a core element (Mandatory) if neither the date of publication nor the date of distribution is identified. This is why the LC-PCC Policy Statement tells catalogers to supply a probable publication date as much as possible, rather than recording date of

Re: [RDA-L] question about dates in 264 fields

2013-01-11 Thread Monica Boyer
A slight tangent from the conversation: In the interest of trying to learn about the 264 in RDA, I looked at the MARC Bibliographic to RDA Mapping in the RDA Toolkit, the 264 isn't there. Likewise, perhaps more surprisingly, the 264 also isn't in the RDA to MARC Bibliographic Mapping. Please

Re: [RDA-L] question about dates in 264 fields

2013-01-11 Thread John Hostage
] On Behalf Of Deborah Fritz Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 12:55 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] question about dates in 264 fields RDA 2.11http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp2target=rda2-7597#rda2-7597 says Copyright date is a core element if neither

Re: [RDA-L] question about dates in 264 fields

2013-01-11 Thread Harden, Jean
@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Monica Boyer Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 3:00 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] question about dates in 264 fields A slight tangent from the conversation: In the interest of trying to learn about the 264 in RDA, I looked at the MARC

Re: [RDA-L] question about dates in 264 fields

2013-01-11 Thread Deborah Fritz
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 4:16 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] question about dates in 264 fields It is not in RDA Toolkit