Per LC PCC PS 2.8.6.6 adding the copyright 264 _4 field is optional as long as 264 _1 doesn't have [date of publication not identified]. LC training's best practice is to supply an inferred date instead of [date of publication not identified] since when the "not identified" filler is used, RDA requires the additional transcription of a distributor or manufacturer 264 if either has an explicit date, or, lacking distribution or manufacturer dates, as a last resort, the copyright date. Optionally you could create additional 264s for distributor, manufacturer, and copyright date even if you have an inferred date of publication, but I do not recommend the option to my trainees. It seems to me the whole point of providing bracketed inferred data in 264 _1 is so you don't have to create additional 264s. I'm aware that the copyright date might be considered important by rare book/special collections cataloging, but I don't think the rare book perspective should drive general cataloging practices.
Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation Catalog & Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Deborah Fritz Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 10:33 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date However, there is an LC PCC PS for 2.8.6.6 that says "2. If the copyright date is for the year following the year in which the publication is received, supply a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright date." And this is a carryover from an LCRI that said, basically, the same thing. So, I would recommend: 264 #1 $c [2014] 264 #4 $c (c)2014 Adding the Copyright Date in this case, would help to explain the choice of the supplied Date of Publication Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. [email protected] www.marcofquality.com -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jenny Wright Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 9:52 AM My understanding is that if the best information you have for a publication date is the copyright date, then the appropriate 264s would be: 264 #1 $c [2014] 264 #4 $c (c)2014 But if you are supplying the publication date and believe 2013 would be more accurate, then 264 #1 $c [2013] 264 #4 $c (c)2014 would be perfectly correct, too. Regards -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Goldfarb, Kathie Sent: 28 March 2013 13:48 The book I have in hand lists a copyright date of 2014. Should the 264 be: 264 1 ...$c [2013] 264 4 4a @2014 Or 264 1 $c [2014] No 264 4 I am leaning toward the second, since many libraries may receive this book in 2014, and the first option might be confusing, since they would not know for a fact that some were distributed in 2013.
