Michael Chopey <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> The text of 126.96.36.199 (and the "May 2000" example there) seem to suggest that the date should be transcribed as found (with the month or full date included), so I've been expecting to see RDA records with more than just a year in 264 $c, but I've yet to see any.
I've encountered very few of them. Here are some OCLC records:
> So I'm starting to think that LC catalogers and others creating RDA records for the things that we receive cataloging copy for have made the decision that "date of publication" means "year of publication," and are therefore only transcribing the year only when more than the year appears. Can anyone confirm that that is what is indeed happening?
I can't comment on this beyond a sentence from LC-PCC PS 188.8.131.52 (on
CIP cataloging): "Take the date of publication from the year given in
the 'projected publication date.'"
> I don't think this is only an issue with what we used to call "dates of release or transmittal" ... I don't think it's uncommon in trade publications to find a statement like "Published March 2012" (usually on t.p. verso; usually on its own line with white space above and below it) as the only indication of when an item was published. In AACR2, I would have transcribed that as 2012 with no brackets (it being formally presented in a prominent place on a prescribed source); in RDA, I feel that the instruction is to transcribe March 2012 in 264 $c, but I'm starting to wonder why I've never seen it yet in an RDA record. (I don't recall it being covered in any training materials I've seen, either, but I could be misremembering).
Adding a couple more contextual points to these observations. The
current ISBD only mentions posting a "date or dates of publication,"
with only one example of a supplied, bracketed day-month-year
combination. (Cf. AACR2's "give the date (i.e., year) of
publication...") The ISBD makes explicit mention of month-year and
day-month-year combinations under the "older monographic resources"
sections. This could imply that the ISBD prefers only years for
And 14.149 in the current edition of the Chicago Manual of Style--that
go-to supplement for catalogers--says this regarding bibliographic
citations for books: "only the year, not the month or day, is included
in the publication date." I don't have any other style guides like
APA and MLA handy to see if they might follow suit.
Our shop hasn't yet made a decision on how to handle these dates.
Consider RDA's instruction a generalist directive and follow specific
citation practice for our cataloging? Or just take RDA at face value?
So far we haven't run into any materials that had anything other than
years for publication dates.
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