Gene, This proves what, exactly? If we are to align our cataloging rules to the display capability of online systems, we will have an even more dizzying area of localized standards. I, for one, do not want to see the ExLibris Aleph v20 Policy Decisions published, followed by the III Milennium Rule Interpretations, et al.
In a Monday grump, Naomi Young University of Florida na...@uflib.ufl.edu Who has been trying to standardize consortial policies and knows at least one path to madness. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 4:24 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates I have also seen both dates entered in the description. Patrons will think we are nuts when they see the display. On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Joan Wang <jw...@illinoisheartland.org<mailto:jw...@illinoisheartland.org>> wrote: AACR2 requires to record publication date and copyright date if they are different. But RDA does not have the same rule. So in AACR2 records, we see different dates in 008 field, and would not see the same dates appearing. But in RDA records we can see the same dates in 008 field. Joan Wang On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse <babra...@mit.edu<mailto:babra...@mit.edu>> wrote: I would point out that this is not what I'm seeing in OCLC. Most RDA records now seem to have Date status set to "t" (Publication date and copyright date) and both date fields filled out, accordingly. Whether there is a difference between pub. date and copyright date, or not. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137<tel:617-253-7137>
