Re: q vs s

[Joan C Biella]

Just a note to say that when I said the websites "justified" LC's use of "s" 
with the first Gregorian year in the fixed fields, I meant only that LC obeys 
what MARC says to do--not that MARC provides a logical argument for doing it.  
We'll add this problem to our presentation at the "LC Update" at this year's 
AJL, and perhaps ask for it to be added to the agenda for the Cataloging 
Committee.

Joan

>>> Barry Dov Walfish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/09/08 1:34 AM >>>
I guess I've been out of the loop for a while, because I was totally  
unaware of this practice and was perfectly happy coding q for Hebrew  
dates where no Gregorain date was indicated. The links Joan provided  
did not work for me, so I couldn't see the rationale for LC's practice.

On first glance it seems to me strange and counterintuitive. To code s  
and give a Gregorian date should indicate that the date is certain.  
But in these cases, there is at least a 66% chance that the first date  
is wrong and that the second one rather than the first is the correct  
one. So, if people really don't like q (I'm not sure why; what does  
this have to do with aesthetics? We're talking about accuracy of  
description), then I would tend to agree with Bob and prefer the  
second date which is the more likely date of publication (still not  
certain). This would conform with the apparent practice in the world  
of Hebrew bibliography, where the second date is usually assumed to be  
the date of publication unless there is a clear indication to the  
contrary.

Barry