Deborah et al., I find this latest twist in the road irritating. :-\ I do not see the abandonment of 260 and going to this more complicated way to expressing publication/copyright year as adding anything in information to the user. In the public library where I now volunteer as a retired cataloger, I must retrofit each and every RDA record I create to eliminate the $c in the second 264 and put it into the first; lots of extra manual work, with no clear added advantage for library users. But I do it, 'cause them's the rules. :-\
I also must re-add $h to all of my 245s when cataloging under RDA, because the collection development librarians want the format included in the title. (I know; I know; I'm supposed to educate them, but they still want things the way they have been.) So cataloging under RDA is taking significantly more time than cataloging with RDA did. Not to speak of 336-338, which so far is of no use to anybody. But I remain hopeful that all these hoops will result in practical benefit to users. On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Deborah Fritz <debo...@marcofquality.com>wrote: > ** > > You might find (LC-PCC PS for > *2.8.6.6*<http://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 > > Basically, LC suggests that you supply a date if known or probable, guess > one if at all possible, using a copyright date, distribution date, first > printing date, or some other method, and make a broad guess if that is > all you can do, as per *1.9.2* <http://access.rdatoolkit.org/1.9.2.html>. > > IOW, do everything you can to guess a publication date, because if you > cannot put *something* down for that element and have to enter [date of > publication not identified], then, as far as I can see, you will need to > do this: > > 264 _1 … $c [date of publication not identified] > > 264 _2 … $c [date of distribution not identified] > > 264 _3 … $c [date of manufacture not identified] > > DtSt = n > > Dates = uuuu, uuuu > > This basically takes us way back to the pre-AACR days when we could do > [n.d.] (no date), but then makes that option so unpleasant that we will > stick to the AACR principle of always putting down a date of publication, > no matter how wild our guess has to be. > > I may be way off base about this, so I would very much like to hear what > the collective wisdom has to say about my interpretation of the 'Core' > instructions for Date of Distribution > (*2.9.6*<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/2.9.6.html> > ) and Date of Manufacture (*2.10.6*<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/2.10.6.html> > ); i.e.: > > · ******* Date of distribution is a core element for a resource in a > published form if the date of publication is not identified.*-- therefore > if [date of publication not identified], and you have no date of > distribution either, then enter [date of distribution not identified], > for a single-part resource > (*2.9.6.6*<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/2.9.6.6.html> > ) > > · ******* Date of manufacture is a core element for a resource in a > published form if neither the date of publication, the date of > distribution, nor the copyright date is identified.*--therefore if [date > of publication not identified], and [date of distribution not identified], and > you have no date of manufacture either, then enter [date of manufacturenot > identified] , > for a single-part resource > (*2.10.6.6*<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/2.10.6.6.html> > ) > > Deborah > > - - - > > Deborah Fritz > > TMQ, Inc. > > debo...@marcofquality.com > > www.marcofquality.com > > -----Original Message----- > 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" & DtSt, Dates > > 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 > > Dates = uuuu, 2005 > > ????? > > Thanks in advance for your help, > > Karen > > Karen Snow, Ph.D. > > Assistant Professor > > Graduate School of Library & Information Science Dominican University > > 7900 West Division Street > > River Forest, IL 60305 > > ks...@dom.edu > > 708-524-6077 (office) > > 708-524-6657 (fax) > -- Buzz Haughton 1861 Pebblewood Dr Sacramento CA 95833 USA (916) 468-9027 bongob...@gmail.com
