And then we come to the patron who sees this displayed on the OPAC. It will end up as a work, an expression, no manifestation, but an item.
Are we really making progress here????? On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Deborah Fritz <debo...@marcofquality.com>wrote: > Just to let you all know that I got an off-list reply about my > interpretation that if we say:**** > > [date of publication not identified]**** > > Then we have to also say:**** > > [date of publication not identified]**** > > [date of distribution not identified]**** > > [date of manufacture not identified]**** > > ** ** > > And the answer was an adamant ‘no’; because the distribution and > manufacture information is core if applicable, we don’t **have** to > provide it. **** > > ** ** > > So we only need to say [date of distribution not identified] when we have > provided other distribution information but don’t have a date of > distribution (LCPS for > 2.9<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp2&target=lcps2-111615#lcps2-111615> > ) . And the same for manufacture information.**** > > ** ** > > So, if we do not have any clue for a possible date of publication, and > refuse to guess (even as broadly as RDA allows) we do not have to give all > three [… not identified] statements; we **should* *still do our best to > guess, but if we **can’t**, we only have to give [date of publication not > identified]**** > > ** ** > > But, I’d still like to know about the 008 Date coding:**** > > ** ** > > 264 _1 … $c [date of publication not identified]**** > > DtSt = n**** > > Dates = uuuu,uuuu**** > > **** > > I’m seeing some RDA records with 264 _1 … $c [date of publication not > identified], and guessed dates in the 008: s200u,____ ; but I don’t think > that is correct.**** > > ** ** > > Deborah**** > > **- **- -**** > > Deborah Fritz**** > > TMQ, Inc.**** > > debo...@marcofquality.com**** > > www.marcofquality.com**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Deborah Fritz > *Sent:* Monday, October 22, 2012 10:54 AM > *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > > *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates* > *** > > ** ** > > You might find (LC-PCC PS for > 2.8.6.6<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/2.8.6.6.html>) > helpful.**** > > I believe that PS would have you do:**** > > 264 _1 … $c[2005]**** > > 264 _4 $c©2005**** > > DtSt = t**** > > Dates = 2005, 2005**** > > Basically, LC suggests that you supply a date if known or probable, guess > one if at all possible, using a copyright date, distribution date, first > printing date, or some other method, and make a broad guess if that is > all you can do, as per 1.9.2 <http://access.rdatoolkit.org/1.9.2.html>. ** > ** > > IOW, do everything you can to guess a publication date, because if you > cannot put *something* down for that element and have to enter [date of > publication not identified], then, as far as I can see, you will need to do > this:**** > > 264 _1 … $c [date of publication not identified]**** > > 264 _2 … $c [date of distribution not identified]**** > > 264 _3 … $c [date of manufacture not identified]**** > > DtSt = n**** > > Dates = uuuu, uuuu**** > > This basically takes us way back to the pre-AACR days when we could do > [n.d.] (no date), but then makes that option so unpleasant that we will > stick to the AACR principle of always putting down a date of publication, > no matter how wild our guess has to be.**** > > I may be way off base about this, so I would very much like to hear what > the collective wisdom has to say about my interpretation of the 'Core' > instructions for Date of Distribution > (2.9.6<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/2.9.6.html> > ) and Date of Manufacture (2.10.6<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/2.10.6.html>); > i.e.:**** > > · * **Date of distribution is a core element for a resource in a > published form if the date of publication is not identified.*-- therefore > if [date of publication not identified], and you have no date of distribution > either, then enter [date of distribution not identified], for a > single-part resource (2.9.6.6 <http://access.rdatoolkit.org/2.9.6.6.html>) > **** > > · * **Date of manufacture is a core element for a resource in a > published form if neither the date of publication, the date of > distribution, nor the copyright date is identified.*--therefore if [date > of publication not identified], and [date of distribution not identified], and > you have no date of manufacture either, then enter [date of manufacture > not identified] , for a single-part resource > (2.10.6.6<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/2.10.6.6.html> > )**** > > Deborah**** > > - - -**** > > Deborah Fritz**** > > TMQ, Inc.**** > > debo...@marcofquality.com**** > > www.marcofquality.com**** > > -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [ > mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA <RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>] On > Behalf Of Snow, Karen > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 10:02 AM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates**** > > I've done a little searching and can't find the answer, so I am hoping the > collective wisdom can help me out...**** > > If you use [date of publication not identified] in 264_1 $c and you have a > copyright date in 264_4 (let's say 2005), how would this look in DtSt and > Dates fixed fields? **** > > DtSt = t**** > > Dates = uuuu, 2005**** > > ?????**** > > Thanks in advance for your help,**** > > Karen**** > > ** ** > > Karen Snow, Ph.D.**** > > Assistant Professor**** > > Graduate School of Library & Information Science Dominican University**** > > 7900 West Division Street**** > > River Forest, IL 60305**** > > ks...@dom.edu**** > > 708-524-6077 (office)**** > > 708-524-6657 (fax)**** > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
