Re: [RDA-L] 264 with copyright date and first published date and reprint date
Chebani Basma posted:
>008 date type r Date 1 = 2012Date 2 = 2013
>264 #1 $a Oxford : $b Oxford University Press, $c [2013]
>264 #4 $a [Oxford] : $b Robin Mansell, $c (c)2012
>588 ## $First published 2012 and reprinted in 2013.
We would have:
008 date type s, Date 1 2012
264 1 $aOxford [England] :$bOxford University Press,$c[2012]
and that's all. We would ignore a reprint date (except for early
printed books) so the reprint could be added as a copy; the reprint
date could be included in the item record. If the ISBN has not
changed, the original and reprint would be one Bibframe instance.
In your example, as well as being too complex, the later date would be
date 1; 264 4 should have only $c; we don't think 264 4 is needed if
the year as the same as 264 1.
As Joan asked, which makes the better display?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] 264 with copyright date and first published date and reprint date
Thank you, it is very helpful. Best regards Basma Chebani American University of Beirut basma.cheb...@aub.edu.lb<mailto:basma.cheb...@aub.edu.lb> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 4:02 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 with copyright date and first published date and reprint date I would consider First published date 2012 as the publication date. Reprinted date 2013 would be a manufacture date. In this case, the manufacture statement can be ignored. Anyway, if you consider it important, put a 500 note for the reprinted date. Also, for the second 264 field (with the second indicator 4), the only thing you need is sub-field c for the copyright date. As you did, put a symbol before the date. Hopefully it helps. Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Basma Chebani mailto:b...@aub.edu.lb>> wrote: Hello, I have one a case with the following: Reprinted date 2013 First published date 2012 Copyright Robin Mansell (c)2012 (the author) I recorded them in RDA 246 as follows: 008 date type r Date 1 = 2012Date 2 = 2013 264 #1 $a Oxford : $b Oxford University Press, $c [2013] 264 #4 $a [Oxford] : $b Robin Mansell, $c (c)2012 588 ## $First published 2012 and reprinted in 2013. 020 ##9780199697052 Kindly advise Thank you Basma Chebani Head of Cataloging and Metadata Services Department University Libraries / Jafet American University of Beirut Beirut - Lebanon Tel: 961-1-35 ext.2614 basma.cheb...@aub.edu.lb<mailto:basma.cheb...@aub.edu.lb> -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:49 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 with only a copyright date Gene Fieg asked, regarding the inclusion of copyright date and inferred publication date in an RDA record: > And how is the user supposed to make sense of this? > How are thesis advisors supposed to make sense of this when checking > bibliographical citations? > How will it display I don't see what you think is confusing about this. The user will look for a publication date, and will find it. What is confusing about that? The same with thesis advisors. What publication date do you think thesis advisors would expect to find? This inferred publication date is only used when there is no evidence of a publication date except the copyright date. A thesis advisor would almost certainly rather some guess of the publication date than no date at all. I would note that theses generally don't have copyright dates, and do have other dates which can be inferred as publication date. So this isn't usually an issue with theses anyway. As for how it will display, that is up to the ILS, of course. One reasonable way (but hardly the only possible way) it could be displayed is: Publication date: [2011] Copyright: (c)2011 That's the way we have it set up in our catalog (Millennium, the same as you have, I believe). Steve McDonald steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu<mailto:steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu> -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] 264 with copyright date and first published date and reprint date
I would consider First published date 2012 as the publication date. Reprinted date 2013 would be a manufacture date. In this case, the manufacture statement can be ignored. Anyway, if you consider it important, put a 500 note for the reprinted date. Also, for the second 264 field (with the second indicator 4), the only thing you need is sub-field c for the copyright date. As you did, put a symbol before the date. Hopefully it helps. Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Basma Chebani wrote: > Hello, > > I have one a case with the following: > Reprinted date 2013 > First published date 2012 > Copyright Robin Mansell (c)2012 (the author) > > I recorded them in RDA 246 as follows: > 008 date type r Date 1 = 2012Date 2 = 2013 > 264 #1 $a Oxford : $b Oxford University Press, $c [2013] > 264 #4 $a [Oxford] : $b Robin Mansell, $c (c)2012 > 588 ## $First published 2012 and reprinted in 2013. > > 020 ##9780199697052 > > Kindly advise > Thank you > > Basma Chebani > Head of Cataloging and Metadata Services Department > University Libraries / Jafet > American University of Beirut > Beirut - Lebanon > Tel: 961-1-35 ext.2614 > basma.cheb...@aub.edu.lb > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:49 PM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 with only a copyright date > > Gene Fieg asked, regarding the inclusion of copyright date and inferred > publication date in an RDA record: > > > And how is the user supposed to make sense of this? > > How are thesis advisors supposed to make sense of this when checking > bibliographical citations? > > How will it display > > I don't see what you think is confusing about this. The user will look > for a publication date, and will find it. What is confusing about that? > The same with thesis advisors. What publication date do you think thesis > advisors would expect to find? This inferred publication date is only used > when there is no evidence of a publication date except the copyright date. > A thesis advisor would almost certainly rather some guess of the > publication date than no date at all. I would note that theses generally > don't have copyright dates, and do have other dates which can be inferred > as publication date. So this isn't usually an issue with theses anyway. > > As for how it will display, that is up to the ILS, of course. One > reasonable way (but hardly the only possible way) it could be displayed is: > Publication date: [2011] > Copyright: (c)2011 > > That's the way we have it set up in our catalog (Millennium, the same as > you have, I believe). > > Steve McDonald > steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu > -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
[RDA-L] 264 with copyright date and first published date and reprint date
Hello, I have one a case with the following: Reprinted date 2013 First published date 2012 Copyright Robin Mansell (c)2012 (the author) I recorded them in RDA 246 as follows: 008 date type r Date 1 = 2012Date 2 = 2013 264 #1 $a Oxford : $b Oxford University Press, $c [2013] 264 #4 $a [Oxford] : $b Robin Mansell, $c (c)2012 588 ## $First published 2012 and reprinted in 2013. 020 ##9780199697052 Kindly advise Thank you Basma Chebani Head of Cataloging and Metadata Services Department University Libraries / Jafet American University of Beirut Beirut - Lebanon Tel: 961-1-35 ext.2614 basma.cheb...@aub.edu.lb -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:49 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 with only a copyright date Gene Fieg asked, regarding the inclusion of copyright date and inferred publication date in an RDA record: > And how is the user supposed to make sense of this? > How are thesis advisors supposed to make sense of this when checking > bibliographical citations? > How will it display I don't see what you think is confusing about this. The user will look for a publication date, and will find it. What is confusing about that? The same with thesis advisors. What publication date do you think thesis advisors would expect to find? This inferred publication date is only used when there is no evidence of a publication date except the copyright date. A thesis advisor would almost certainly rather some guess of the publication date than no date at all. I would note that theses generally don't have copyright dates, and do have other dates which can be inferred as publication date. So this isn't usually an issue with theses anyway. As for how it will display, that is up to the ILS, of course. One reasonable way (but hardly the only possible way) it could be displayed is: Publication date: [2011] Copyright: (c)2011 That's the way we have it set up in our catalog (Millennium, the same as you have, I believe). Steve McDonald steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu
