Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates

The LC-PCC Policy Statement 2.8.6.6 says: 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. If you supply a probable date, then you don't need to record the copyright date, alth

Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates

:aren Snow asked: > >If you use [date of publication not identified] in 264_1 $c and you >have a copyright date in 264_4 (let's say 2005), how would this look >in DtSt and Dates fixed fields? You should have 264 1 ... $c[2005?] 008/06 = s, 008/07-10 = 2005 __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elro

Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates

Deborah et al., I find this latest twist in the road irritating. :-\ I do not see the abandonment of 260 and going to this more complicated way to expressing publication/copyright year as adding anything in information to the user. In the public library where I now volunteer as a retired cataloger

Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates

You might find (LC-PCC PS for 2.8.6.6 ) helpful. I believe that PS would have you do: 264 _1 . $c[2005] 264 _4 $cC2005 DtSt = t Dates = 2005, 2005 Basically, LC suggests that you supply a date if known or probable, guess one if at all possible, using a

[RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates

I've done a little searching and can't find the answer, so I am hoping the collective wisdom can help me out... If you use [date of publication not identified] in 264_1 $c and you have a copyright date in 264_4 (let's say 2005), how would this look in DtSt and Dates fixed fields? DtSt = t Dat