Sometimes I wonder if the idea of "publication date" isn't really a fiction invented by catalogers to give us flexibility in what date we record. I'll admit that if I know two copies with the same copyright date are typographically identical, in spite of having different dates on the title page, I will interpret the later date as a printing date.
I'm guessing that publishers know what date something was printed and what date it was copyrighted, but if you asked them what the publication date was, they'd wonder what you were asking.
I agree with Manon that the change is reasonable, because patrons should be able to identify an item by a date that's actually on it.
UAB Lister Hill Library
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Manon Theroux
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 11:49 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Question re: RDA, 264 at DtSt ff
The change in the LCPS for 184.108.40.206 was a result of a recommendation in the final report of the LC/PCC RDA Policy Statements Task Group (see p. 49):
http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/RDA Task groups and charges/PCC_RDA_Policy_TG_Final_Report.docx
As chair of the task group, I thought I'd briefly explain why we recommended that the date of receipt *not* be supplied as the publication date in these situations.
The date of receipt can vary widely among institutions. The task group was concerned that institutions receiving the item at a later date would be puzzled by the source of the supplied date and wonder whether they were dealing with the same resource. The group also thought patrons might be puzzled if they were looking for the resource and had knowledge of its copyright date based on citations from other resources. Because recording the copyright date in the bib record was optional in this situation, the copyright date wouldn't necessarily have been present in the bib record display. The task group might have been more amenable to the idea of supplying the date of receipt as the publication date if recording the copyright date in the 26X were made mandatory in these cases, but still would not have liked the idea of basing a publication date on something as random and unpredictable as when a cataloger happened to receive an item.
The task group's recommendation was ultimately accepted by the PCC Policy Committee and the LCPS revised. The task group received no comments on the recommendation from the PCC membership during the review period (which was admittedly short given the many recommendations contained in this long report!).
Head of Technical Services
U.S. Senate Library
SR-B15 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-7112
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Hall, Jack <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I agree with Mark that the earlier version makes more sense. If you
> received it that year, surely it was published in that year. Something
> like that could have legal implications.
> Jack Hall
> Manager of Cataloging Services
> Linguistics Librarian
> University of Houston Libraries
> Houston, TX 77204-2000
> phone: 713 743 9687
> fax: 713 743 9748
> email: [log in to unmask]
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark Ehlert
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 10:57 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Question re: RDA, 264 at DtSt ff
> Brueck, Vicki <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> In the LCPS for 220.127.116.11 there is an example showing an optional
> inclusion of a copyright date in addition to a probable publishing
> date and in the example the value for 008/06 Type of date is "t."
> Speaking of which, this example is a recent change in practice by LC.
> The older version of LCPS 18.104.22.168, A1. read: "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 year of receipt."
> Now it reads: "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." In both cases,
> the "t" code is employed. The earlier version makes more sense to me.
> Mark K. Ehlert Minitex
> Coordinator University of Minnesota
> Digitization, Cataloging & 15 Andersen Library
> Metadata Education (DCME) 222 21st Avenue South
> Phone: 612-624-0805 Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439