LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  August 2013

PCCLIST August 2013

Subject:

Re: DtSt type when probable publication date the same as the copyright date

From:

Dale Swensen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:54:38 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (96 lines)

You're right, Tim. "Record" is a better way to put it. Sorry if I misled.

I think it's interesting to note that the LC-PCC PS for 2.8.6.6 indicates
that if you have only a copyright date and use that as the probable
publication date (i.e. bracketed), whether or not you add the copyright date
in a second 264 field is optional, it's not required. Nevertheless, it seems
that a lot of catalogers are choosing to add it. So it's good to remember
that if you chose to go that way, you need to make the DtSt type agree.

Dale

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Carlton, Tim
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 2:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: DtSt type when probable publication date the same as the
copyright date

I hate to be picky, but that's what we as catalogers do, right?  :-)

I notice that you use the word "supplying".  This could be interpreted very
literally by some as "if you (for example) know the pub date for certain but
decide (as is you right) to also record a copyright date, then you are in
fact 'supplying' neither date, in the sense of 'inferring data that is not
on the resource', then you should not use the "t" code".  This
interpretation is technically not correct.

In fact, the "t" code is used whenever both dates are included in the 264
field(s) -- whether you record them from the source or supply/infer them
(unless another takes precedent, as Mark Ehlert stated).

The word "supplying" is a red herring; "record" is a better term.  
Again, I apologize for being OCD, but I didn't want confusion.

Timothy J. Carlton
Senior Instructor
Cooperative and Instructional Programs Division Library of Congress
202-707-5323
[log in to unmask]

Usual disclaimers apply




-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Dale Swensen
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 3:19 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] DtSt type when probable publication date the same as
the copyright date

Clara,

What you said in your second paragraph below is essentially correct. Use "t"
only when you are supplying both a publication date (bracketed or otherwise)
and a copyright date. Use "s" when you supply a publication date alone, even
if that date is a probably date of publication based on the copyright date.


Dale Swensen
Head of Technical Services & Digital Access Howard W. Hunter Law Library
260D JRCB Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602
801-422-4407
Fax 801-422-0404
[log in to unmask]



-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Yan Liao
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 10:23 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: DtSt type when probable publication date the same as the copyright
date

Dear colleagues, I have seen inconsistent treatment on the issue: When the
264  1 publication date is supplied uncertainly with square bracket but the
same year with the real copyright date (probably based on the copyright date
in most cases), what DtSt should we use? "t" or "s"? I have found some are
using "t", some using "s".

I kind of remember that I once read a post about the issue. At the
beginning, it encouraged to use "s", but later the post master said that
getting some official response that since both copyright and publication
date is supplied, "t" should be used even they are the same. However, since
only publication date is required, it is fine by not supplying copyright
date. If not supplying copyright date, it's fine by just using "s".

What should be the right practice? Thanks.

Clara

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager