Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates

2012-10-29 Thread Gene Fieg
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates* *** ** ** You might find (LC-PCC PS for 2.8.6.6http://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

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates

2012-10-26 Thread Deborah Fritz
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

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates

2012-10-23 Thread Arakawa, Steven
22, 2012 6:49 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates Gene Fieg wrote: Why include both dates when one will do. When one will do for what? Date of publication and date of copyright are *not* the same thing. They may often (one

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates

2012-10-23 Thread Kevin M Randall
Steven Arakawa wrote: I don't know whether the 440 vs. 490/830 analogy works. The problem with 440 was that it combined description and controlled access in one MARC field; 490/830 clearly recorded the distinction between the series as it appeared vs. the series as controlled access. In the

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates

2012-10-23 Thread Gene Fieg
Where this reasoning goes is this: Since the 245 has a dual role, why not split it? Currently, the 245 is description and access point. Should we split them? On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Kevin M Randall k...@northwestern.eduwrote: Steven Arakawa wrote: I don't know whether the 440 vs.

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates

2012-10-23 Thread Snow, Karen
Gene Fieg wrote: Where this reasoning goes is this: Since the 245 has a dual role, why not split it? Currently, the 245 is description and access point. Should we split them? We already do this, though inconsistently, through uniform titles/preferred title of the work, yes? Karen

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates

2012-10-23 Thread Benjamin A Abrahamse
/ Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 12:03 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates Where this reasoning goes is this: Since the 245 has a dual

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates

2012-10-23 Thread Snow, Karen
Getting back to my original question concerning [date of publication not identified] and DtSt, Dates, based upon the answers received so far, there is currently no way to code 264_1 $c [date of publication not identified] and 264 _4 $c copyright [insert year] in DtSt and Dates. If this is the

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates

2012-10-23 Thread J. McRee Elrod
Karen Snow said: ... there is currently no way to code 264_1 $c [date of publication not identified] and 264 _4 $c copyright [insert year] in DtSt and Dates. Thankfully. Having date ... not identified and a date in the same record makes us look very foolish. If nuMARC allows coding such a

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates

2012-10-23 Thread Kevin M Randall
Mac Elrod wrote: Karen Snow said: ... there is currently no way to code 264_1 $c [date of publication not identified] and 264 _4 $c copyright [insert year] in DtSt and Dates. Thankfully. Having date ... not identified and a date in the same record makes us look very foolish. If nuMARC

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates

2012-10-23 Thread J. McRee Elrod
Kevin Randall said: It's not simply date ... not identified but date of publication not identified. A copyright date is not a publication date. I have seen many resources over the years bearing copyright statements but no date of publication ... That's what the question mark after the year

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates

2012-10-22 Thread Robert Maxwell
[asch...@u.washington.edu] Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 11:10 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates The LC-PCC Policy Statement 2.8.6.6 says: 1. Supply a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright date, in square

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates

2012-10-22 Thread J. McRee Elrod
robert Maxwell said: ,,, how to code the fixed fields in a MARC record if you do choose to record the element that way while recording a copyright date One should NEVER do that. It is cruel and unusual publishment for patrons. If 264 1 $c and 264 4 $c are the same: 008/06 = s, 008/07-10 =

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates

2012-10-22 Thread Benjamin A Abrahamse
, 2012 2:56 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates robert Maxwell said: ,,, how to code the fixed fields in a MARC record if you do choose to record the element that way while recording a copyright date One should NEVER do

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates

2012-10-22 Thread Gene Fieg
: Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates robert Maxwell said: ,,, how to code the fixed fields in a MARC record if you do choose to record the element that way while recording a copyright date One should NEVER do that. It is cruel and unusual publishment for patrons

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates

2012-10-22 Thread Adam L. Schiff
] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates robert Maxwell said: ,,, how to code the fixed fields in a MARC record if you do choose to record the element that way while recording a copyright date One should NEVER do that. It is cruel and unusual publishment for patrons. If 264 1 $c

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates

2012-10-22 Thread Joan Wang
-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 2:56 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates robert Maxwell said: ,,, how to code the fixed fields in a MARC record if you do choose

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates

2012-10-22 Thread Gene Fieg
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates robert Maxwell said: ,,, how to code the fixed fields in a MARC record if you do choose to record the element that way while recording a copyright date One should NEVER do that. It is cruel

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates

2012-10-22 Thread Young,Naomi Kietzke
@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

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates

2012-10-22 Thread Kevin M Randall
The Monday grump wrote: 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

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates

2012-10-22 Thread Benjamin A Abrahamse
-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 2:56 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.camailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates robert Maxwell said: ,,, how to code the fixed fields in a MARC

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates

2012-10-22 Thread J. McRee Elrod
Ben said: 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. How redundant. Lubetsky must be spinning in his grave. A little

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates

2012-10-22 Thread Gene Fieg
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

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates

2012-10-22 Thread Kevin M Randall
Gene Fieg wrote: Why include both dates when one will do. When one will do for what? Date of publication and date of copyright are *not* the same thing. They may often (one might argue most of the time) appear identical. But they are two entirely different things. Just like the series

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates

2012-10-22 Thread Deborah Fritz
, 2012 11:22 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates Hmm. Could be right. However, if III, our system here, could read a MARC record directly, we might not have this problem. Our 260 displays just as we record it. So, what

[RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates

2012-10-21 Thread Snow, Karen
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

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates

2012-10-21 Thread Deborah Fritz
www.marcofquality.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto: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

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates

2012-10-21 Thread Buzz Haughton
- 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

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates

2012-10-21 Thread J. McRee Elrod
:aren Snow asked: 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? You should have 264 1 ... $c[2005?] 008/06 = s, 008/07-10 = 2005 __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates

2012-10-21 Thread Adam L. Schiff
The LC-PCC Policy Statement 2.8.6.6 says: 1. Supply a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright date, in square brackets, if it seems reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication date. If you supply a probable date, then you don't need to record the copyright date,