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

[Robert Talbott]

I'm against the "q" on grounds that it's esthetically weak and is therefore 
undesirable.  If we have to change practice, I'd favor changing how we 
enter the 260$c data in cases of uncertainty. Thus, using Joan's example, 
we currently enter 744 [1983 or 1984].  If we had to change, I'd prefer to 
enter under the same conditions 744 [1984].

My two cents.

Bob

At 07:21 AM 5/8/2008, you wrote:
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]>[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] 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joan C Biella
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 4:17 PM
To: 
<mailto:heb-naco@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu>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>http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd008a.html
or
<http://www.itsmarc.com/crs/Bib0466.htm>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]>[EMAIL PROTECTED] or 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel.: (614) 292-3362, Fax: (614)292-1918
URL: 
<http://library.osu.edu/sites/jdc/jdc.php>http://library.osu.edu/sites/jdc/jdc.php
Lexicon of Modern Hebrew Literature:
<http://hebrewlit.notlong.com/>http://hebrewlit.notlong.com