I will add one thing to Greta's very clear explanation.
While the field explicitly states that this is a copyright date, it does not state what type of copyright date is being recorded. There are two types of copyright date--copyright for text (the (c) date) and the phonogram copyright date (the (p) date), which is the copyright for recorded sound. Again, these are two different things, and both may appear on the same item (and be different). I remember vaguely that when the field was first being created, there was some talk of separating the symbol and the date, but in the end they were left together in one field.
Nancy On 1/30/2013 9:40 AM, Greta de Groat wrote:
Since i see that a Stanford record is being cited in this discussion, i would like to offer a little in the way of explanation. Steven is right, the initial RDA test instructions for pieces which lacked a date of publication were to record the copyright date if it appeared on the piece, and to use it to infer the date of publication. Therefore, you would get the date of publication bracketed and also the copyright date recorded, even if they were the same. We contacted LC and were told that the Date Type coding for this would indeed be t, and the same date would be recorded in Dates 1 and 2 The LC-PCC-PS was recently updated to indicate that the requirement was to infer the date of publication from the copyright date and bracket it, but it no longer says to record the copyright date. Therefore, following this practice, one would have a bracketed date in the 264 1, but not record a 264 3 with the copyright date. In this case, Date Type would be s and there would be no date recorded in Date 2. However, some of us are continuing the original practice because we believe it to be clearer and more useful. It is also not incorrect, it's just that LC is not mandating it any more. One reason is that a bracketed date in the 264 1 is ambiguous. It can mean "i have a copyright date that i'm not recording but i'm inferring the pub date from it" or it can mean "i don't have a date anywhere on this and i'm just guessing based on internal or external evidence or the fact that it just came in the door and looks new". We think recording the copyright date is much more useful for copy cataloging, as one can confirm that the copyright date actually appears on the piece, rather than looking at the record and not knowing whether to look for a date or not. It seems logical and helpful to record a date that actually appears. The other reason is that the copyright date is an explicit legal statement. In these digital days when copyright questions are coming up all of the time, i would think that an explicit copyright date would be something that we'd want to record (even if things are technically copyrighted without it. I was very surprised at the LC-PCC-PS change, as i had thought the original policy quite sensible. It is not redundant, as publication date and copyright date are two different things. We're not needing to save space on cards any more. And i have no insight into why we continue to use the copyright symbol since, as has been pointed out, the field tagging makes the fact that it's a copyright date explicit. I don't remember that ever being discussed, but it is a good point (though programmers should be able to take the date out of the Date2 field if it has been correctly coded). Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries ----- Original Message ----- From: "SEVIM MCCUTCHEON"<lmccu...@kent.edu> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:29:20 AM Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question I think perhaps despite the discussion, a question remains on coding in OCLC: If you're using 264s, and the date of publication and the date of copyright are the same, which is the proper code in the Date Type, s or t? Sevim McCutcheon Catalog Librarian, Asst. Prof. Kent State University Libraries 330-672-1703 lmccu...@kent.edu -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:12 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question I'll apologize in advance for the length of this. I'm trying to work up some RDA training for my copy cataloging staff and am working through a number of DLC RDA records that we are downloading. For the past year, we've had RDA records routed to our Non-DLC cataloger as we wait for RDA to "settle". Given that the numbers of RDA records are increasing& we're rapidly approaching April, I need to get some basic local guidelines set& move these back to our LC copy catalogers. I'm having particular issues with aspects of the publication area. My current question: I'm repeatedly seeing in the 008 dtst "t" used to indicate a publication and copyright date. While it is technically correct that both dates are given in this record, in the past we've mainly seen and used "t" in the dtst field when those dates differ, even by a year. What I'm seeing now is this sort of transcription (an "older" record still using 260): 260 Stanford, California : |b Stanford University Press, |c [2012], ©2012. Trying to make sense out of this coding I viewed this record in LC's catalog& they have used 008 dtst s with: 264 _1 |a Stanford, California : |b Stanford University Press, |c [2012] [title in question is Competitive strategies for the 21st century : theory, history, and practice] OCLC770694281 LC 2011052146 The 008 dtst coding of the record in LC's database (as opposed to the record we downloaded from OCLC which apparently has been edited separately) looks "more" correct to me. The former coding in OCLC looks like "overkill" -- How useful/necessary/correct is it to code this dtst to other than s& have duplicate dates in the 008 date area? This raises the larger question: for those working up training for your copy catalogers, at what point do you tell your people to leave copy as is, even if that isn't what you would personally prefer? To the average library user, both transcriptions give essentially the same information. At this point, given the variety of 260/264 interpretations/transcriptions, I'm seriously debating telling my copy catalogers "If the 008/260 in the LC copy record adequately conveys the book in hand& is essentially correct, leave it." While I appreciate cataloger discretion when I am creating a record or editing existing copy, I'm finding it exceedingly difficult to create these local copycat editing guidelines for the plethora of interpretations we're seeing. Impatiently waiting for RDA postings from ALA Midwinter to be posted. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135
-- Nancy Lorimer Head, Music Technical Services Stanford Music Library nlori...@stanford.edu 650-725-8819
