-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Michael Borries
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 8:50 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date
I have wondered whether originally
Michael Borries posted:
I have wondered whether originally the approach of separating
publication date and copyright date didn't arise, in part, at least,
from this phenomenon of having books published earlier than the
copyright date indicates.
I don't think so. Both rules and standards say to
RDA-L readers,
Mac Elrod said: SLC agrees with the various guidelines (LC, PCC) that one
should use the single year in 008 and 26X as on the item. We consider the book
to be published when the publisher said it was, and the item received before
January to be an early release, common for
Ian Fairclough ifairclough43...@yahoo.com wrote:
I have been wondering how and why this situation concerning publication in
a year yet to come arose, and why LCPCCPS was written the way it is.
Perhaps the situation developed from an attempt in LCPCCPS to make RDA
easier to use while
of Patricia Sayre-McCoy
[p...@uchicago.edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:01 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date
But what about the cataloger who received the book in 2013? And the patron who
used it last week but it can't be this book because
I think that in 10 years time a scholar looking for materials on Italian
politics would very much like to know if a book had been published in 2013
or 2014. In fact the month in 2013 would be useful, and I like the idea of
adding a note.
Catalogers receiving the book in 2014 would know very well
John Williams said:
I think that in 10 years time a scholar looking for materials on Italian
politics would very much like to know if a book had been published in 2013
or 2014.
SLC agrees with the various guidelines (LC, PCC) that one should use
the single year in 008 and 26X as on the item.
The book I have in hand lists a copyright date of 2014.
Should the 264 be:
264 1 ...$c [2013]
264 4 4a @2014
Or
264 1 $c [2014]
No 264 4
I am leaning toward the second, since many libraries may receive this book in
2014, and the first option might be confusing, since they would not
...@uchicago.edu
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Goldfarb, Kathie
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 8:48 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: [RDA-L] Publication date
March 2013 13:48
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date
The book I have in hand lists a copyright date of 2014.
Should the 264 be:
264 1 ...$c [2013]
264 4 4a @2014
Or
264 1 $c [2014]
No 264 4
I am leaning toward the second, since many
However, there is an LC PCC PS for 2.8.6.6 that says 2. If the copyright date
is for the year following the year in which the publication is received, supply
a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright date.
And this is a carryover from an LCRI that said, basically, the same thing.
: Thursday, March 28, 2013 9:32 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date
However, there is an LC PCC PS for 2.8.6.6 that says 2. If the copyright date
is for the year following the year in which the publication is received, supply
a date of publication
@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date
However, there is an LC PCC PS for 2.8.6.6 that says 2. If the copyright
date is for the year following the year in which the publication is
received, supply a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright
date
28, 2013 10:43 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date
Shouldn't there be a question mark inserted as well since the publication
date is probable, but unknown? (rules 1.9.2.3 and 2.8.6.6)
264 #1 $c [2014?]
264 #4 $c (c)2014
Karen Snow, Ph.D
immediately by telephone or by electronic mail
and then delete this message and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you.
- Original Message -
From: Kathie Goldfarb kgoldf...@com.edu
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 9:48:11 AM
Subject: [RDA-L] Publication date
Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Fritz
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:33 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date
However, there is an LC PCC PS for 2.8.6.6 that says 2. If the
copyright date
Kathie asked:
The book I have in hand lists a copyright date of 2014.
Should the 264 be:
264 1 ...$c [2013]
264 4 4a @2014
Or
264 1 $c [2014]
No 264 4
I would agree with you on your second choice, for the reason you give.
Libraries receiving the book after January would not know some
] Publication date/copyright date
However, there is an LC PCC PS for 2.8.6.6 that says 2. If the copyright date
is for the year following the year in which the publication is received, supply
a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright date.
And this is a carryover from an LCRI
Steven Arakawa wrote:
I'm aware that the copyright date might be considered important by rare
book/special collections cataloging, but I don't think the rare book
perspective should drive general cataloging practices.
I don't mean to sound belligerent, but isn't this a bit short-sighted? I
Of Snow, Karen
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 10:43 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date
Shouldn't there be a question mark inserted as well since the publication
date is probable, but unknown? (rules 1.9.2.3 and 2.8.6.6)
264 #1 $c [2014?]
264 #4 $c
On 3/28/2013 8:07 AM, Will Evans ev...@bostonathenaeum.org wrote:
Rules or no rules, shouldn't the record reflect the reality of the
situation?!
264#1 $c [2013]
264#4 $c (c) 2014
500 Publication received by cataloging agency in 2013. $ MBAt
I'm puzzled by this approach, which seems to
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Lisa Hatt
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:45 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date
On 3/28/2013 8:07 AM, Will Evans ev...@bostonathenaeum.org wrote:
Rules or no rules, shouldn't the record
Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Snow, Karen
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:16 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date
Steven Arakawa wrote
@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Lisa Hatt
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:45 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date
On 3/28/2013 8:07 AM, Will Evans ev...@bostonathenaeum.org wrote:
Rules or no rules, shouldn't the record reflect the reality
2:45 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date
On 3/28/2013 8:07 AM, Will Evans ev...@bostonathenaeum.org wrote:
Rules or no rules, shouldn't the record reflect the reality of the
situation?!
264#1 $c [2013]
264#4 $c (c) 2014
500 Publication
Agreed, they are different elements so it is not redundant. In
addition, I am mostly cataloging materials where there is no formal
publication statement, just a copyright statement. I think it will be
less confusing to users and to copy catalogers if i actually have a date
on the piece, to
/ Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Lisa Hatt
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 2:45 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date
On 3/28/2013 8:07 AM, Will Evans ev...@bostonathenaeum.org wrote:
Rules or no rules
-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date
Except, think about how people are going to cite such a work in their
research. I doubt many take the bib record from our catalogs and use
that. Instead they will probably look at the book in hand, see only a
copyright date, and record
RDA-L readers,
To address Adam Schiff's concern about how scholars will cite a publication.
We as catalogers are contributing to that very scholarship when we document the
actual publication date. If scholars care to consult our records, they can
correct the false impression that the
I tend to agree with approach of recording both years. We didn't create the
conundrum.
I agree with Adam that there's a high probability that Two, five, ten years
from now, that book is going to be seen in the scholarly community as from
2014, not from 2013. (if cited at all, of course).
30 matches
Mail list logo
