Agreed, they are different elements so it is not redundant. In
addition, I am mostly cataloging materials where there is no formal
publication statement, just a copyright statement. I think it will be
less confusing to users and to copy catalogers if i actually have a date
on the piece, to indicate that someplace on the record, whether in the
264 as a copyright date or in a note. Just a bracketed date of
publication is quite ambiguous--it can mean that you inferred the date
from a stated copyright date, that you inferred the date from somewhere
else in the item, or that you just guessed. So a copy cataloger coming
upon the record doesn't know whether the piece actually has a date on it
or not, making it more challenging to decide if they have the right record.
Greta de Groat
Stanford University Libraries
On 3/28/2013 11:15 AM, Snow, Karen wrote:
Steven Arakawa wrote:
"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."
I don't mean to sound belligerent, but isn't this a bit short-sighted? I
realize that we can't put *everything* into bibliographic records and we can't
always predict what will be useful in the future, but copyright information
will likely be important for many years to come. Why not include the copyright
date now so that future generations can use this information for retrieval?
Let's be honest, how much additional time is needed to add a copyright date if
it's right there on the item? I am genuinelyconfused why this is considered
extraneous information.
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)
