Julie,
LC-PCC Policy Statement for 2.8.6.6 says "Supply a date of publication if
possible, using the guidelines below, rather than give [date of
publication not identified]."
A. If an item lacking a publication date contains only a copyright date,
apply the following in the order listed:
1. Supply a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright date, in
square brackets, if it seems reasonable to assume that date is a likely
publication date.
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.
B. If an item lacking a publication date contains a copyright date and a
date of manufacture and the year is the same for both, supply a date of
publication that corresponds to that date, in square brackets, if it seems
reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication date.
C. If an item lacking a publication date contains a copyright date and a
date of manufacture and the years differ, supply a date of publication
that corresponds to the copyright date, in square brackets, if it seems
reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication date. A manufacture
date may also be recorded as part of a manufacture statement, or recorded
as part of a Note on issue, part, or iteration used as the basis for
identification of a resource (See 2.20.13), if determined useful by the
cataloger.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Julie Moore wrote:
If all that you have is the copyright date, then it should look like this,
right?
264 #1 $a Syracuse, New York : $b [publisher not identified]
264 #4 $c ?2009
Is it OK or incorrect to add the copyright date in the 264 bracketed as an
inferred date? So it would look like this:
264 #1 $a Syracuse, New York : $b [publisher not identified], $c [2009]
264 #4 $c ?2009
Thanks for your guidance!
Best wishes,
Julie
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Adam L. Schiff <asch...@u.washington.edu>wrote:
I think many catalogers feel that since the copyright date is present on
the resource, they should record it even if they've given an inferred
publication date in 264 _1 $c. And some libraries have made it a local
core element. If it is present, I always record it.
Adam Schiff
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^**^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/**~aschiff<http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Julie Moore wrote:
Follow up question ... why is it that I see the majority of RDA records
with multiple 264s having the 264 _1 (publication) and 264 _4?
Is this because the only date they have is a copyright date ... so they
put
the publisher info in the 264 _1 $a and $b and sometimes $c [copyright
date
-- so thus, and inferred publication date?] ... and then they are putting
the copyright date in the 264 _4?
Thanks,
Julie Moore
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Adam L. Schiff <asch...@u.washington.edu
**wrote:
Distribution would only be a core element if the publication element was
not identified. Manufacture would only be core element if neither the
publication nor the distribution element was identified. You COULD
provide
everything you know but if you have publication place, publisher, and
date
of publication, nothing else is required.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^****^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/****~aschiff<http://faculty.washington.edu/**~aschiff>
<http://faculty.**washington.edu/~aschiff<http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~****~~~~~~~~
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Julie Moore wrote:
(My apologies for the cross-posting)
Dear All,
In trying to move beyond the inexplicable inconsistent "period" issue
...
Now we have with the 264 the possibilities of:
2nd indicator entity functions of:
0 = Production
1 = Publication
2 = Distribution
3 = Manufacture Statements
4 = Copyright notice date
Are we required to provide all if we have all? If not, which ones are
required?
I have noticed that in most cases, there is only a 1 (Publication) and
a 4
(copyright date).
I would be grateful for some clarification on this.
Best wishes,
Julie Moore
--
Julie Renee Moore
Head of Cataloging
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813
?Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
themselves.?... James Matthew Barrie
--
Julie Renee Moore
Head of Cataloging
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813
?Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
themselves.?... James Matthew Barrie
--
Julie Renee Moore
Head of Cataloging
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813
?Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
themselves.?... James Matthew Barrie
