I agree with Jenny: I would love to know the reasoning behind this. As for machine actionable: although I’m no great programmer, I do know that anyone building something using the copyright date would have to insert at least one line of code to strip out the copyright symbol. However, depending on the situation this element could contain any of the following four options for a book with copyright date 2002 (2.11.1.3):
©2002 copyright 2002 ℗2002 phonogram 2002 There are other cases of this in AACR2/RDA (a good example is the 300$c which includes the units- which can vary- and the quantities in one piece of text) but the copyright date seems more alarming as it was added anew in RDA. Thanks, Tom (further ramblings on the 300 field<http://www.aurochs.org/aurlog/2012/07/10/how-big-is-my-book-mashcat-session/>) --- Thomas Meehan Head of Current Cataloguing Library Services University College London Gower Street London WC1E 6BT t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jenny Wright Sent: 30 January 2013 09:30 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question I too have wondered about this - an instruction to record copyright date is fine, but given that, in MARC, 264 #4 $c means copyright date, why should we need to insert the © symbol before it? Jenny Wright Development Manager Bibliographic Data Services Ltd. -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: 29 January 2013 20:25 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question I think you have a good point. If the instruction were worded, "2.11.1 Basic instructions on recording copyright *statements*" it would make perfect sense to include the © just like we include "by" in a statement of responsibility. But it's worded "... copyright dates" which implies that that data element should exclusively be a date. As to whether this makes it less "machine actionable" I cannot say, though I would point out for whatever it's worth that the "Dublin Core library metadata action profile" lists copyright as a refinement of the element, "date", which would suggest for DC at least (which, whatever else it is, is closer to "machine actionable data" than our MARC records) the © symbol is not considered part of the data. (See: http://dublincore.org/documents/library-application-profile/index.shtml#DateCopyrighted) Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Beth Guay Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:23 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca<mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question I'm hung up on the RDA instruction for recording a copyright date as a symbol or spelled out element conjoined to a text string otherwise known as a date. It seems to me, that here we have an excellent effort to carry our data from MARC to linked data format through use of a newly defined 264 field, and rather than entering data (the date) into the area (264 second indicator 4 $c) that contains data defined as copyright date, we enter a symbol plus a date, or a spelled out word plus a date. What we are transcribing is not a date but a symbol plus a date. Is it a string or a thing? http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/show/id/5.html Is ©2002 machine actionable? Shouldn't it be up to the content display system to supply the symbol or spelled out element -- © or copyright or ℗ or phonogram? Have there been any successful efforts that anyone is aware of which is a system that serves up labeled data elements from a complex combination of elements in the leader 008 field byte 06 DtSt, byte 07-10 Date 1 and byte 11-14 Date 2? Beth ----------------------------- Beth Guay Continuing and Electronic Resources Cataloger Metadata Services Department 2200 McKeldin Library, University of Maryland College Park, Maryland 20742 (301) 405-9339 fax (301) 314-9971 bag...@umd.edu<mailto:bag...@umd.edu> -----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, January 28, 2013 2:58 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question 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<mailto:ks...@dom.edu> 708-524-6077 (office) 708-524-6657 (fax) ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________
