Except, think about how people are going to cite such a work in their
research. I doubt many take the bib record from our catalogs and use
that. Instead they will probably look at the book in hand, see only a
copyright date, and record that year in their bibliographies. Two, five,
ten years from now, that book is going to be seen in the scholarly
community as from 2014, not from 2013.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
[email protected]
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Will Evans wrote:
I am not a RDA guru either and perhaps I am too rare book centric in my
thinking, but I do not understand the need to perpetuate the myth that the
publication date is 2014, when the resource was clearly published in 2013.
The resource may not state that it is published in 2013, but by the fact
that it is on my desk waiting to be cataloged in 2013, I can conclude that
it was indeed published in 2013, despite the presence of a copyright date
of 2014. Moreover, I would argue that the RDA definition of publication
date is consistent with this line of thought, as we know the resource was
released in 2013.
Date of Publication: A date associated with the publication, release, or
issuing of a resource.
-----Original Message-----
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lisa Hatt
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 2:45 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date
On 3/28/2013 8:07 AM, Will Evans <[email protected]> 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
