Not at all a stupid question. To me, it's getting down to the different needs of databases and copy cataloging procedures.
I understand the need to differentiate when you are extrapolating the publication year from the copyright date (given absence of a pub. year). But in real world copy cataloging with diminishing numbers of people to check copy, MY question comes down to: given the same year for both copyright and publication, how important it is to differentiate these pieces of data and edit copy to reflect that difference. The majority of records with "DLC" in a the 040 (which I realize a number of agencies have weighed in on) I'm seeing actually appear to be ignoring copyright when it duplicates the pub year, hence my question for what to do when it is noted so meticulously. I have most often seen this format of late when I have a book that lists both publication year & the copyright date separately on the same page & they are both 2012: 264 _1 New York : |b The Penguin Press, |c 2012. Copyright as not core is ignored. I'm also seeing 260 __ New York : |b The Penguin Press, |c 2012, c2012. With a dtst s & a single 2012. And then again there is the form that sparked my original question. 260 Stanford, California : |b Stanford University Press, |c [2012], ©2012. With the dtst t and 2012 twice in the dates 008. Do we advise copy catalogers to edit to 264 or let all variations pass if essentially "correct" for when they were cataloged (as best they can tell!) I had assumed we would not be editing 260s to 264 in copy cat work. In original work we are indeed using 264s per the current PCC guidelines. Perhaps since this question is really looking more at local process in copy cataloging than at precise original cataloging rules, it would be more appropriately put to AUTOCAT. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135 -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 2:23 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question So what is the purpose of AACR2 rule requiring a difference between copyright and publication dates? Is it a stupid question? Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Snow, Karen <ks...@dom.edu> wrote: Patricia Folger wrote: "The former coding in OCLC looks like "overkill" -- How useful/necessary/correct is it to code this dtst to other than s & have duplicate dates in the 008 date area?" I'm not sure I understand the problem here. Publication dates and copyright dates are not the same, even if they share the same year. They are discreet data elements. That is why 264_1 $c and 264_4 $c were created in the first place, to better distinguish the dates and make them more machine-actionable. Warm regards, 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) -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature