Mac Elrod said: > A slide says this: > > "If date or dates cannot be approximated, don't record date(s) of > publication - omit the element; do not give '[date of publication not > identified]'"
This slide is only talking about resources that are NOT single-volume monographs, and for which the first and/or last issue/part is NOT available. > Good. It is silly to have that phrase followed by a copyright or > manufacturing year. > > BUT we have been told differently by others, and this presentation has > the following example: > > "260 $a Chicago : $b ELC Publishers, $c [date of publication not > identified], c2010." > > Silly looking, and nonsense to a patron. This example does not contradict the slide mentioned at the top of this message. It's an example of a single-part monographic resource. I must agree with Mac that a "date of publication not identified" statement right next to a copyright date does look silly, and probably seems like nonsense to the typical user. I really wish there were a way to follow RDA and not have that happen. However, all we can do right now is shoehorn RDA elements into our current MARC 21 record structure, which is designed to hold data from earlier rules based on an entirely different conceptual framework. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Bibliographic Services Dept. Northwestern University Library 1970 Campus Drive Evanston, IL 60208-2300 email: [email protected] phone: (847) 491-2939 fax: (847) 491-4345
