Re: 260$c and Type of date (008/06)

[Heidi Lerner]

I agree with Yosi. We discussed this issue back in the mid-90s and the 
consensus was that we follow LC practice which is not to code as "q" but rather 
as "s". I see no reason for change. Perhaps as a group we can suggest that OCLC 
modify its documentation when we meet in Clevelanad with the OCLC people.

Heidi G. Lerner
Hebraica/Judaica Cataloger
Catalog Dept.
Stanford University Libraries
Stanford, CA  94305-6004
ph: 650-725-9953
fax: 650-725-1120
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Joseph Galron 
  To: Lovins, Daniel ; Joan C Biella ; heb-naco@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu 
  Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 7:21 AM
  Subject: Re: 260$c and Type of date (008/06)


  I am against change! (i did not vote for the senator from illinois :-) )

  We should explain OCLC and ask them to remove their example.

  Yossi


  On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Lovins, Daniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

    Joan,

    We've been operating with the same understanding as LC going back as far as 
I remember (back to the days of Leonard Matthless): to use the code 's' with 
the first of the two possible gregorian dates. I think in my own mind I argued 
that it really *wasn't* a questionable date; we knew the date in the Hebrew 
calendar. It was the conversion into Gregorian terms that introduced the 
uncertainty, not the date itself. Sort of splitting hairs, I realize, but it 
had a certain logic to it. Maybe we should reconsider now that we've been 
assimilated into the One Big Utility?

    -- Daniel


    -----Original Message-----
    From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joan C Biella
    Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 4:17 PM
    To: heb-naco@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu
    Subject: 260$c and Type of date (008/06)

    Friends,

    Here is a piece, or two pieces, of information which may interest you--or 
they may make you tear your hair and shriek "Is there no justice?!"  In spite 
of this risk, I think you should know.

    I received a query about how to code the fixed field for "Type of date" 
(008/06) when the 260$c has a year of the Jewish calendar followed by the two 
equivalent Gregorian years in brackets--e.g.,

    $c 744 [1983 or 1984]

    Which is right for the fixed field, (1) "q" (questionable date) followed by 
the two possible Gregorian years in the Date1 and Date2 fixed fields, or (2) 
"s" (single date) followed by the earlier Gregorian date in the Date1 field?

    As you know, LC follows practice (2), putting "s" in the 008/06 and, in the 
above example, "1983" in the 008/07-10.  But many other libraries follow 
practice (1) and use "q."

    I inquired into this problem, and found the justification for LC's practice 
in the discussion of the code "s" at
    http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd008a.html
    or
    http://www.itsmarc.com/crs/Bib0466.htm

    But I also learned that OCLC documentation, using the same "744" example, 
says to code it "q" (questionable date).  Why OCLC chooses to do this I don't 
know, but it sure explains why a lot of these are coded "q" in the OCLC 
database!

    Joan






  -- 
  Joseph (Yossi) Galron-Goldschlaeger
  Head, Hebraica & Jewish Studies Library
  The Ohio State University Libraries 
  6001 Ackerman Library,
  610 Ackerman Road
  Columbus, Ohio 43202-4500 USA
  E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Tel.: (614) 292-3362, Fax: (614)292-1918
  URL: http://library.osu.edu/sites/jdc/jdc.php
  Lexicon of Modern Hebrew Literature:
  http://hebrewlit.notlong.com