LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


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  June 2013

PCCLIST June 2013

Subject:

Re: Fwd: Detailed dates in RDA

From:

"Bremer,Robert" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 13 Jun 2013 22:02:56 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (46 lines)

I would think the determination as to whether a detailed date represents an actual publication date versus a date of release or transmittal needs to be based on the type of material being cataloged.  Government publications and technical reports have many instances of dates of release or transmittal that do not coincide with dates of publication, stated or inferred from other evidence.  In some cases, a contractor or grant-recipient finishes some research and compiles a report which carries the date that the report was completed and/or transmitted to another agency.  That agency might wait a year or two before actually publishing the report.  This distinction between publication date and other kinds of dates can be important in terms of knowing whether new information on a topic was generally available.  In a special library where I once worked we had some of the organization's attorneys come in at one point asking questions like that related to a lawsuit.  The distinction does sometimes matter.

In that same former position I used to catalog transportation material, some of it published by the U.S. Dept. of Transportation, sometimes issued more than once in different report series.  I keep a few copies of these old reports around because they have been useful examples in cataloging training in the years since.  As an example, OCLC record #11806360 for the title "The impact of changing women's roles on transportation needs and usage" has September 1983 prominently displayed on the cover and title page without any other dates, but the report number has DOT-I-85-01 which is a clue that this particular version was not published in 1983.  There's also a GPO colophon date with 1984 in it.  So, the bibliographic record ended up with a quoted note with "September 1983" but an inferred publication date of [1984] based on the printing/manufacture information in the colophon, i.e., this version could not have been published in September 1983 if copies were not printed until 1984.  And, apparently this item was the first report made available by the Department in 1985 hence the report numbering.

So, it's not so straightforward.  Obviously, something like "published May 2013" represents a publication date, but other dates especially in government and technical reports presented in places other than foot of a title page should probably be viewed as more likely to be dates of release, transmittal, etc., as opposed to a publication date itself.

Robert Bremer
[log in to unmask]


-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Greta de Groat
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 4:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Fwd: Detailed dates in RDA

I have a question about detailed dates of publication vs. dates of transmittal.  RDA 2.8.6.3 says to "record the date of publication" and gives an example of "May 2000."  There is no relevant LC-PCC-PS relating to this example.  Publication seem to be defined in 2.8.6.l as "a date associated with the publication, release, or issuing of a resource."

However the LC-PCC-PS for 2.20.7 says:
LC practice/PCC practice: If a date of release or transmittal is found on the resource and it is considered important for identification, record it in a note if it has not been recorded elsewhere in the bibliographic description (e.g., in the edition statement). Include the month and day, if present.
EXAMPLE
250 ##     $a Version 1.0, Release Aug. '96.
500 ##     $a "May 1979"
500 ##     $a "May 1, 1979"
500 ##     $a "Issued May 1979"

This is similar language to the old LCRI 2.7B which says:
"When a publication has a date of release or transmittal in a prominent position, include it in the bibliographic description. Typically these special dates consist of month or month and day as well as year and appear on the title page or cover.  If the date is in a phrase that is being recorded as an edition statement, so record it.  If an edition statement is not appropriate, quote the date in a note, including with it any associated words.
"May 1979"
"May 1, 1979"
"Issued May 1979"
Note that a date of release or transmittal is not a publication date.
If the publication lacks a copyright date or a date of manufacture (cf.
LCRI 1.4F6), the publication date may be inferred from the date of release or transmittal.  Then, give the inference in brackets in the publication, distribution, etc., area and follow the above instructions for the date of release or transmittal.
In case of doubt as to the character of the date, treat it as a date of release or transmittal."

So, the question is, how would we determine that a date on the title page which has a month or month and day is a date of transmittal rather than a publication date?  Is it the mere presence of a month or month and day?  If RDA considers "release" to be publication, is that why the "release" example was added (contrary to the old LCRI) to indicate that it should be an element associated with the edition statement in this case rather than either publication or a note? However, the "Issued May 1979" example was retained, which is puzzling if RDA considers "issued"
to be published."   I'm not sure of the status of the term "posted",
which occurs often in online documents.

We have been given to understand that the PSD indicates that full publication dates must be transcribed (and so coded in MARC), though i cannot find this anywhere in the present documentation on the LC website.  Between the current RDA rule and definition, the current LC-PCC-PS, and the prior history of the treatment of these dates (for which we simply gave a quoted note for a full date and inferred a year for the publication date, pretty much whatever the character of the date), can anyone offer any guidance on a practical means of distinguishing a dates of publication, issuing, release, and transmittal in terms of RDA cataloging?

Thanks
Greta de Groat
Stanford University Libraries

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

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