I am an RDA neophyte, so please bear with me.

In addition to the Toolkit and JSC examples, I was searching the archives for guidance on dtst and subfield c of the 264 and found this email. I have an item that has a copyright statement, which includes the copyright date (1984) and a publication statement, but no publication date. 2.8.6.6 says to supply the date or approximate date of publication. There is no other date, so would 264 $c be [date of publication after 1984] and should I add a 264 $c c1984? How would the relevant 008 fixed length data elements be coded?

I have another general question. I understand the differences between the dates, but I do not understand the necessity of using the publication date before all others. I see many, new books that have only copyright date. Is the date of publication supplied in these cases? Does every RDA record have to have a 264 1 $c?

Thank you,

gary oliver
Abilene Christian University

After reading all the email with dtst in the subject, I thought I would have 264 1 $c [date o
On 1/31/2013 12:38 PM, JSC Chair wrote:
Just a correction about the copyright date in RDA (2.11) - it is a "core element" only if neither the date of publication nor the date of distribution is identified. A note on copyright date is covered in 2.20.10.

At 2.11.1.1, the scope of a copyright date in RDA is "a date associated with a claim of protection under copyright or a similar regime. Copyright date includes phonogram dates (i.e., dates associated with claims of protection for sound recordings)."

This is completely separate from a publication date, distribution date, manufacture date.

The use of a copyright date as a best guess for any of those other dates (particularly publication date) is from practice, not from RDA. When a publication date is not identified in the resource, RDA says (2.8.6.6) to "supply the date or approximate date of publication" and, when that is not possible, to use the standard phrase 'date of publication not identified'.

- Barbara Tillett, JSC Chair
Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA

Reply via email to