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

[Joan C Biella]

The suggestion that we use the later of two possible Gregorian dates in the 
fixed field, rather than the earlier one, has been made many times.  Please 
take note that this change in our practice would require a change in the MARC 
documentation, which now specifies citing the earlier year.  I don't personally 
know anything about the procedures for changing MARC, but I have the impression 
that the process is a lengthy one.  Perhaps we can discuss in the Cataloging 
Committee meeting whether we want to pursue this.

Bear in mind that Jewish dates are not the only ones covered by this provision 
in MARC.  Islamic years for sure can cover two (or more) Gregorian years, and 
possibly other Asian systems can as well.

Joan

>>> Clifford Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 6/4/2008 10:15 AM >>>
e-mails from May 6 to present did not reach me until today. Sorry.

It seems to me OCLC will change its practice 
on reconsidering the information you have supplied to us.

SInce 9 months of Gregorian year overlap 9 months of Hebrew year, 
(approximately)
it seems to me that the date ending with the same final digit in the
(75%) probable date of publication, absent any other information or clues.

Thanks and warm wishes.
Clifford Miller


At 04:17 PM 5/6/2008, you wrote:
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