Honestly, I doubt patrons will, or ever do, think about who puts the data in the catalog, at all.
That said, when the new 264 fields were implemented we changed our display (running Aleph v.20) so that is reads "Publication:" for 264:x1: and "Copyright:" for 264:x4:. (Which by the way we were able to do because 264 is differently defined than 260.) I think it looks just fine, and not even slightly crazy--even if they are the same date. Under AACR2 we used copyright date as a surrogate for publication date, when it was nowhere to be found; but under RDA it is (appropriately, I think) a separate data element. I think this makes sense, for two reasons: first, because that is typically how it appears on books (with copyright and publication often appearing in different places on the piece); and second, because people are sometimes interested in copyrights in and of themselves, not just in using them to identify books. I've certainly had my share of questions about the utility of some decisions that went into RDA, and its implementation; but for me at least this isn't one of them. Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 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 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, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Joan Wang <jw...@illinoisheartland.org<mailto:jw...@illinoisheartland.org>> wrote: AACR2 requires to record publication date and copyright date if they are different. But RDA does not have the same rule. So in AACR2 records, we see different dates in 008 field, and would not see the same dates appearing. But in RDA records we can see the same dates in 008 field. Joan Wang On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse <babra...@mit.edu<mailto:babra...@mit.edu>> wrote: I would point out that this is not what I'm seeing in OCLC. 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. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137<tel:617-253-7137> -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca<mailto:RDA-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<mailto: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 and unusual publishment for patrons. If 264 1 $c and 264 4 $c are the same: 008/06 = s, 008/07-10 = 2005 If 264 1 $c and 264 4 $c differ: 008/06 = t, 008/07-10 = 2006, 008/11-14 = 2005 __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca<mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca>) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/<http://www.slc.bc.ca/> ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________ -- Joan Wang Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409<tel:618.656.3216x409> 618.656.9401Fax -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu<mailto:gf...@cst.edu> Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
