While RDA and FRBR are theoretically based on user needs, I often find it hard to imagine what needs are being met by particular options, or even requirements.  Clearly the date of publication is important to users, but what does a copyright date that is the same or within a year or two of the date of publication add?   One could argue that the date of the original intellectual content is as important as the date of publication, but this is not given in any consistent way.  Maybe in the future it will show up as the date of the work, but now it shows up only occasionally via a significantly earlier copyright or the original date of a reprint.

Amy

[log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carlton, Tim
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 11:06 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] DtSt type when probable publication date the same as the copyright date

And I apologize if I suggested that it is required; it certainly is not).
(In fact -- speaking personally, not as a matter of policy -- the fact that I have to remember to code the additional 008 element is a reason why I might not generally add the 2nd 264, especially when the year is the same for both elements.  Certainly I would not change it when Copy-Cataloging) 

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dale Swensen
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 10:55 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] DtSt type when probable publication date the same as the copyright date

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