The book I have in hand lists a copyright date of 2014.
Should the 264 be:
264 1 ...$c [2013]
264 4 4a @2014
Or
264 1 $c [2014]
No 264 4
I am leaning toward the second, since many libraries may receive this book in
2014, and the first option might be confusing, since they would not
I believe the first solution is exactly what RDA 264 was designed for. I think
it's far more confusing to have only the 2014 date when we know darn well we
got the book in 2013.
Pat
Patricia Sayre-McCoy
Head, Law Cataloging and Serials
D’Angelo Law Library
University of Chicago
773-702-9620
My understanding is that if the best information you have for a publication
date is the copyright date, then the appropriate 264s would be:
264 #1 $c [2014]
264 #4 $c (c)2014
But if you are supplying the publication date and believe 2013 would be more
accurate, then
264 #1 $c [2013]
264 #4 $c
However, there is an LC PCC PS for 2.8.6.6 that says 2. If the copyright date
is for the year following the year in which the publication is received, supply
a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright date.
And this is a carryover from an LCRI that said, basically, the same thing.
Shouldn't there be a question mark inserted as well since the publication date
is probable, but unknown? (rules 1.9.2.3 and 2.8.6.6)
264 #1 $c [2014?]
264 #4 $c (c)2014
Karen Snow, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Graduate School of Library Information Science
Dominican University
7900 West Division
And just what is the patron supposed to think when he/she sees different
kinds of info.
What were those FRBR goals again? And all for the benefit of the patron
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Snow, Karen ks...@dom.edu wrote:
Shouldn't there be a question mark inserted as well since the
Rules or no rules, shouldn't the record reflect the reality of the
situation?!
264#1 $c [2013]
264#4 $c (c) 2014
500 Publication received by cataloging agency in 2013. $ MBAt
~~
Will Evans
Chief Rare Materials Catalog Librarian
Library of the Boston Athenaeum
My vote would be for the 1st option, because it shows that the copyright date
is 2014. [2014] by itself could be confusing to a catalog user.
My 2 cents.
Thanks.
Michele Estep
Cataloging and Metadata Librarian
Savannah College of Art and Design®
Jen Library
201 E. Broughton St.
I am shocked. I thought (as Patricia said) that this was exactly the situation
the new rules were designed for.
Yours, a chastened,
John Williams
Technical Services Librarian
Robert H. Evans Library
Bologna, Italy
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource
Kathie asked:
The book I have in hand lists a copyright date of 2014.
Should the 264 be:
264 1 ...$c [2013]
264 4 4a @2014
Or
264 1 $c [2014]
No 264 4
I would agree with you on your second choice, for the reason you give.
Libraries receiving the book after January would not know some
Dear colleagues,
You may be interested to know that at the University of Cambridge, we have
just completed RDA training for all staff at Cambridge University Library
and the Central Sciences Library, Medical Library, Betty Gordon Moore
Library and Squire Law Library. We will therefore be
Per LC PCC PS 2.8.6.6 adding the copyright 264 _4 field is optional as long as
264 _1 doesn't have [date of publication not identified]. LC training's best
practice is to supply an inferred date instead of [date of publication not
identified] since when the not identified filler is used, RDA
Hello everyone,
I have a question about how to properly formulate a particular Bible
heading, that I don't think will be covered by the Phase 2 changes. I have
a record for an older book, and it has the following main entry, which is
now no longer valid under RDA:
130 0 _ Bible. $p N.T. $p
Two tiny questions:
For dimension of discs and all audio carrier, Library of Congress practice
states *Record the diameter of discs in inches*. Does it still follow RDA
Appendix B about the abbreviation? In B.7, inch should be abbreviated. Just
want to make sure.
For end punctuations of 264
Steven Arakawa wrote:
I'm aware that the copyright date might be considered important by rare
book/special collections cataloging, but I don't think the rare book
perspective should drive general cataloging practices.
I don't mean to sound belligerent, but isn't this a bit short-sighted? I
I agree with Will about adding an explanatory Note on Copyright date .
Adding an explanatory note could be useful to reveal that the contents of
the resource are actually somewhat older than the
publication-supplied-from-copyright implies. Other wording I have seen for
this is:
500$a
On 3/28/2013 8:07 AM, Will Evans ev...@bostonathenaeum.org wrote:
Rules or no rules, shouldn't the record reflect the reality of the
situation?!
264#1 $c [2013]
264#4 $c (c) 2014
500 Publication received by cataloging agency in 2013. $ MBAt
I'm puzzled by this approach, which seems to
I made a typo when I first sent this out, I did mean to have the 264 with
publication date of [2013] (though I guess it should be [2013?], since it does
not appear anywhere on the book itself,
Since I have the book in hand, I would consider that to mean that is was
published this year (or
I agree. I think if the publication and copyright dates are different, it is
desirable to add both.
kathie
Kathleen Goldfarb
Technical Services Librarian
College of the Mainland
Texas City, TX 77539
409 933 8202
Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email.
-Original
But what about the cataloger who received the book in 2013? And the patron who
used it last week but it can't be this book because this book hasn't been
published yet? I makes less sense to pretend that the book wasn't published for
8 months than to include a bracked publication date and make
I am not a RDA guru either and perhaps I am too rare book centric in my
thinking, but I do not understand the need to perpetuate the myth that the
publication date is 2014, when the resource was clearly published in 2013.
The resource may not state that it is published in 2013, but by the fact
With RDA, reproductions in a new format (such as microform) shift cataloging
focus to the manifestation in hand rather than the original content the new
format conveys. The same was true in the switch from AACR(1) to AACR2 but an
LCRI allowed for the use of a 533 reproduction note enabling the
Agreed, they are different elements so it is not redundant. In
addition, I am mostly cataloging materials where there is no formal
publication statement, just a copyright statement. I think it will be
less confusing to users and to copy catalogers if i actually have a date
on the piece, to
Except, think about how people are going to cite such a work in their
research. I doubt many take the bib record from our catalogs and use
that. Instead they will probably look at the book in hand, see only a
copyright date, and record that year in their bibliographies. Two, five,
ten years
Field 046 could be used to record the creation date of the work, and could
certainly be indexed and displayed. You could also still use field 534 in
RDA I think.
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA
Well, think about the future scholar that wants to know if the resource
was available in 2013 to prove some thesis he is working on.
~~
Will Evans
Chief Rare Materials Catalog Librarian
Library of the Boston Athenaeum
10 1/2 Beacon Street
Boston, MA 02108
Tel:
Ione,
coincidentally, I have been struggling with the exact same question, and I
followed the same path that you have followed. I would also be grateful to
hear what others are doing.
My personal take on the situation:
As I read it, RDA allows 3 collective subdivisions of the Bible:
Bible. Old
RDA-L readers,
To address Adam Schiff's concern about how scholars will cite a publication.
We as catalogers are contributing to that very scholarship when we document the
actual publication date. If scholars care to consult our records, they can
correct the false impression that the
The instruction in 6.23.2.6 that says, For compilations of apocryphal
books, apply the instructions at 6.2.2.9.2 is clearly a mistake, since,
as Charles says, these apocryphal books are not considered to be parts
of the Bible or any other larger work. A simple correction of this to
apply the
Emily Flynn said:
Using RDA for cataloging microform reproductions, this means that the origi=
nal only gets noted in a 776 field ...
There are other options, including 534 and repeating 264.
We put the original publisher in 264 1, and the micro distributor or
manufacturer in 264 2 or 3. We
I tend to agree with approach of recording both years. We didn't create the
conundrum.
I agree with Adam that there's a high probability that Two, five, ten years
from now, that book is going to be seen in the scholarly community as from
2014, not from 2013. (if cited at all, of course).
Basically, we have the use of one term here to cover two different things:
books that are canonical in the Catholic canon and the same term for those
that are excluded from the Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic canons.
Another term used for the latter is: Pseudepigrapha.
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at
Jay Weitz of OCLC says:
The codes isbdcontent and isbdmedia are Genre/Form Code and Term
Source Codes that were announced by the Library of Congress in its
2013 February 22 Technical Notice
(http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/tn130222src.html). They are part of
the upcoming OCLC-MARC Update on
534 or 7xx is better than nothing but I continue to think the old way (using
533 for the reproduction information, 260--now 264, for the publication
information of the original) puts the bibliographical information that users
are interested in where they are most likely to look.
In my
Benjamin said:
534 or 7xx is better than nothing but I continue to think the old way
(using 533 for the reproduction information, 260--now 264, for the
publication information of the original) puts the bibliographical
information that users are interested in where they are most likely
to look.
35 matches
Mail list logo
