I made a typo when I first sent this out, I did mean to have the 264 with publication date of [2013] (though I guess it should be [2013?], since it does not appear anywhere on the book itself,
Since I have the book in hand, I would consider that to mean that is was published this year (or earlier), not in 2014. kathie Kathleen Goldfarb Technical Services Librarian College of the Mainland Texas City, TX 77539 409 933 8202 Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email. -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Lisa Hatt Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:45 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date On 3/28/2013 8:07 AM, Will Evans <ev...@bostonathenaeum.org> wrote: > Rules or no rules, shouldn't the record reflect the reality of the > situation?! > > 264#1 $c [2013] > 264#4 $c (c) 2014 > > > 500 Publication received by cataloging agency in 2013. $ MBAt I'm puzzled by this approach, which seems to second-guess the publisher's intent. Unless there's something we haven't been told, I don't get the idea that the resource itself makes any statement about having been published in 2013. If a cataloger first encountered this item in 2014+, they'd have no reason to believe it was published in anything other than 2014, because that's the date printed on the thing itself, yes? (I know there are reverse cases where a later ed. such as trade pbk. does not actually state its publication date and simply retains the copyright of the first hc ed., resulting in situations like [2002], c2001 in AACR2. But in that case other information supports the choice of supplied date, I think.) Rare books might be different, and I am no RDA guru, but my feeling would be to go with what Deborah recommended. -- Lisa Hatt Cataloging De Anza College Library 408-864-8459
