Patricia Fogler asked :
How useful/necessary/correct is it to code this dtst to other than s have
duplicate dates in the 008 date area?
The Canadian Committee on MARC felt exactly the same way when Proposal 2011-02,
which included examples of duplicate dates in the 008 field, was discussed by
Patricia asked:
Do we advise copy catalogers to edit to 264 or let all variations pass if
essentially correct for when they were cataloged (as best they can tell!)
We will instruct that 264 4 be deleted if the $c is the same as 264
1, that date type be s, and only date 1 be coded, whether
I have found this 264 _1 with 264 _4 coding to be a major time consumer
when using RDA. For my local system, I must now copy what I put in 264 _4,
e.g. ©2010 into 264 _1, delete the former, and then download. I fail to see
what the repetition of what I put into these two MARC fields accomplishes
3 matches
Mail list logo