Re: [RDA-L] 264 with only a copyright date
An appropriate display would like this:
RDA record:
*Publication:* New York : Harper, [1961]
*Copyright date:* c1961
AACR2 record:
*Publication: *New York : Harper, c1961
Which one is clearer and not liable to misinterpretation by users
(non-catalogers)?
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Gene Fieg gf...@cst.edu wrote:
I wasn't talking about the copyright of theses.
In terms of theses: author cites New York : Harper, c1961
Catalog record reads 264 New York : Harper, [1961]
264 c1961
Thesis advisor checks citation and notes the [1961].
Calls in author. Our catalog says it was published in 1961, are you sure
you want to keep c1961.
That is what says in the book, says author.
Hmm, says advisor, I wonder why we have [1961] and where did it come from?
AACR2: New York : Harper, c1961
Which one is clearer and not liable to misinterpretation by users
(non-catalogers)?
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:28 AM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Amy Mercer posted:
264 #4 $a London; $a Toronto : $b Schott, $c (c)2011
No. Field 264 4 has only $c date. The publisher may or may not be
the copright holder.
You do not record a copyright date in 264 1; in the absence of an
imprint date, you record an inferred imprint date in brackets, i.e.,
the copyright date in brackets without the copyright symbol. We do not
record a 264 4 date if the same as 264 1, even if in brackets in 264
1. I agree that the two 264s with the same date looks redundant. You
are right to seek a more sensible solution.
We would do this imprint as:
264 1 $aLondon [England] ;$aToronto [Ontario] : $bSchott,$c[2011]
We always transcribe or supply jurisdiction; since there is a London in
both Ontario and England that seems particularly important in this
case.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
--
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 only a copyright date
I have seen many examples like the one below, in which there is both a publication date and a copyright date. 264 #1 $a London ; $a Toronto : $b Schott, $c [2011] 264 #4 $c (c)2011 But I cannot find a rule or example in which there is only a copyright date. How is that handled? Would it be correct to do it this way? 264 #4 $a London; $a Toronto : $b Schott, $c (c)2011 If not...help. If so, what is the rule? Thanks, Amy Mercer Technical Services / Serials Librarian Wm. G. Squires Library Lee University 260 11th St. NE Cleveland, TN 37311 423.614.8564 amer...@leeuniversity.edu
Re: [RDA-L] 264 with only a copyright date
264 fields use different second indicators to separate publication, distribution, manufacture statement, and copyright date. The second indicator 4 of 264 field means copyright notice date. That means it only records the copyright date. Copyright date is a core element only if neither date of publication nor date of distribution is identified. But my feeling is that most of time people would record a copyright date if there is one appearing on the piece. The bracketed publication date in the first 264 field (with the second indicator 1) is inferred from the copyright date. The Library of Congress Policy encourages you to supply a probable publication date. The policy includes a guideline for supplying a probable publication date. Does that make sense? Thank you. Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Amy Mercer amer...@leeuniversity.eduwrote: I have seen many examples like the one below, in which there is both a publication date and a copyright date. ** ** 264 #1 $a London ; $a Toronto : $b Schott, $c [2011] 264 #4 $c ©2011 ** ** ** ** But I cannot find a rule or example in which there is only a copyright date. How is that handled? Would it be correct to do it this way? ** ** 264 #4 $a London; $a Toronto : $b Schott, $c ©2011 ** ** If not…help. ** ** If so, what is the rule? ** ** Thanks, ** ** *Amy Mercer* Technical Services / Serials Librarian Wm. G. Squires Library Lee University 260 11th St. NE Cleveland, TN 37311 423.614.8564 amer...@leeuniversity.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 only a copyright date
Amy, the 264 $4 contains ONLY the copyright date, with no other information. The example you showed seems to be a case where the publication date was inferred from the copyright date, thus the bracketed date in the first 264 field. Strictly according to RDA, the first 264 should contain [publication date not supplied] which results in the need for the second 264. The LC policy statement for this instruction however, allows for the inference of the publication date from the copyright date. In our libraries, we would use the first 264 only, and eliminate the second. Hope this helps. Kevin Roe Media Processing Dept. Fort Wayne Community Schools Fort Wayne IN From: Amy Mercer amer...@leeuniversity.edu To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 9:06 AM Subject: [RDA-L] 264 with only a copyright date I have seen many examples like the one below, in which there is both a publication date and a copyright date. 264 #1 $a London ; $a Toronto : $b Schott, $c [2011] 264 #4 $c ©2011 But I cannot find a rule or example in which there is only a copyright date. How is that handled? Would it be correct to do it this way? 264 #4 $a London; $a Toronto : $b Schott, $c ©2011 If not…help. If so, what is the rule? Thanks, Amy Mercer Technical Services / Serials Librarian Wm. G. Squires Library Lee University 260 11th St. NE 423.614.8564 amer...@leeuniversity.edu Cleveland, TN 37311
Re: [RDA-L] 264 with only a copyright date
I would just add that the publication date element is core in RDA, and that my reading of the instruction indicates a preference to supply or approximate the date unless it cannot reasonably be determined. We also follow the LCPS. My own preference in such a case is to add the copyright date as well (in 264 _4), so the user of the record can see the information that was actually in the resource. On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 9:46 AM, rball...@frontier.com rball...@frontier.com wrote: Amy, the 264 $4 contains ONLY the copyright date, with no other information. The example you showed seems to be a case where the publication date was inferred from the copyright date, thus the bracketed date in the first 264 field. Strictly according to RDA, the first 264 should contain [publication date not supplied] which results in the need for the second 264. The LC policy statement for this instruction however,allows for the inference of the publication date from the copyright date. In our libraries, we would use the first 264 only, and eliminate the second. Hope this helps. Kevin Roe Media Processing Dept. Fort Wayne Community Schools Fort Wayne IN *From:* Amy Mercer amer...@leeuniversity.edu *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Sent:* Wednesday, August 21, 2013 9:06 AM *Subject:* [RDA-L] 264 with only a copyright date I have seen many examples like the one below, in which there is both a publication date and a copyright date. 264 #1 $a London ; $a Toronto : $b Schott, $c [2011] 264 #4 $c ©2011 But I cannot find a rule or example in which there is only a copyright date. How is that handled? Would it be correct to do it this way? 264 #4 $a London; $a Toronto : $b Schott, $c ©2011 If not…help. If so, what is the rule? Thanks, *Amy Mercer* Technical Services / Serials Librarian Wm. G. Squires Library Lee University 260 11th St. NE Cleveland, TN 37311 423.614.8564 amer...@leeuniversity.edu -- Richard A. Stewart Cataloging Supervisor Indian Trails Library District 355 Schoenbeck Road Wheeling, Illinois 60090-4499 USA Tel: 847-279-2214 Fax: 847-459-4760 rstew...@indiantrailslibrary.org http://www.indiantrailslibrary.org/
Re: [RDA-L] 264 with only a copyright date
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 On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Stewart, Richard rstew...@indiantrailslibrary.org wrote: I would just add that the publication date element is core in RDA, and that my reading of the instruction indicates a preference to supply or approximate the date unless it cannot reasonably be determined. We also follow the LCPS. My own preference in such a case is to add the copyright date as well (in 264 _4), so the user of the record can see the information that was actually in the resource. On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 9:46 AM, rball...@frontier.com rball...@frontier.com wrote: Amy, the 264 $4 contains ONLY the copyright date, with no other information. The example you showed seems to be a case where the publication date was inferred from the copyright date, thus the bracketed date in the first 264 field. Strictly according to RDA, the first 264 should contain [publication date not supplied] which results in the need for the second 264. The LC policy statement for this instruction however,allows for the inference of the publication date from the copyright date. In our libraries, we would use the first 264 only, and eliminate the second. Hope this helps. Kevin Roe Media Processing Dept. Fort Wayne Community Schools Fort Wayne IN *From:* Amy Mercer amer...@leeuniversity.edu *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Sent:* Wednesday, August 21, 2013 9:06 AM *Subject:* [RDA-L] 264 with only a copyright date I have seen many examples like the one below, in which there is both a publication date and a copyright date. 264 #1 $a London ; $a Toronto : $b Schott, $c [2011] 264 #4 $c ©2011 But I cannot find a rule or example in which there is only a copyright date. How is that handled? Would it be correct to do it this way? 264 #4 $a London; $a Toronto : $b Schott, $c ©2011 If not…help. If so, what is the rule? Thanks, *Amy Mercer* Technical Services / Serials Librarian Wm. G. Squires Library Lee University 260 11th St. NE Cleveland, TN 37311 423.614.8564 amer...@leeuniversity.edu -- Richard A. Stewart Cataloging Supervisor Indian Trails Library District 355 Schoenbeck Road Wheeling, Illinois 60090-4499 USA Tel: 847-279-2214 Fax: 847-459-4760 rstew...@indiantrailslibrary.org http://www.indiantrailslibrary.org/ -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
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
Re: [RDA-L] 264 with only a copyright date
Sorry, the copyright symbol in my reply got automatically changed to (c). That's what I get for replying in text format. :( Steve McDonald steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu -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 1:49 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
Re: [RDA-L] 264 with only a copyright date
Amy Mercer posted:
264 #4 $a London; $a Toronto : $b Schott, $c (c)2011
No. Field 264 4 has only $c date. The publisher may or may not be
the copright holder.
You do not record a copyright date in 264 1; in the absence of an
imprint date, you record an inferred imprint date in brackets, i.e.,
the copyright date in brackets without the copyright symbol. We do not
record a 264 4 date if the same as 264 1, even if in brackets in 264
1. I agree that the two 264s with the same date looks redundant. You
are right to seek a more sensible solution.
We would do this imprint as:
264 1 $aLondon [England] ;$aToronto [Ontario] : $bSchott,$c[2011]
We always transcribe or supply jurisdiction; since there is a London in
both Ontario and England that seems particularly important in this
case.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] 264 with only a copyright date
I wasn't talking about the copyright of theses.
In terms of theses: author cites New York : Harper, c1961
Catalog record reads 264 New York : Harper, [1961]
264 c1961
Thesis advisor checks citation and notes the [1961].
Calls in author. Our catalog says it was published in 1961, are you sure
you want to keep c1961.
That is what says in the book, says author.
Hmm, says advisor, I wonder why we have [1961] and where did it come from?
AACR2: New York : Harper, c1961
Which one is clearer and not liable to misinterpretation by users
(non-catalogers)?
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:28 AM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Amy Mercer posted:
264 #4 $a London; $a Toronto : $b Schott, $c (c)2011
No. Field 264 4 has only $c date. The publisher may or may not be
the copright holder.
You do not record a copyright date in 264 1; in the absence of an
imprint date, you record an inferred imprint date in brackets, i.e.,
the copyright date in brackets without the copyright symbol. We do not
record a 264 4 date if the same as 264 1, even if in brackets in 264
1. I agree that the two 264s with the same date looks redundant. You
are right to seek a more sensible solution.
We would do this imprint as:
264 1 $aLondon [England] ;$aToronto [Ontario] : $bSchott,$c[2011]
We always transcribe or supply jurisdiction; since there is a London in
both Ontario and England that seems particularly important in this
case.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
