*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
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
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
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
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.
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
/ 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
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
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
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
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
[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
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 =
, 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
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
] 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
-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
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
@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
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
-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
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
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
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
, 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
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
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
-
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
: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
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,
30 matches
Mail list logo