This is one in a series of messages emanating from the University of
California, San Diego Cataloging Committee discussion of proposals and
discussion papers on the agenda for MARBI at Midwinter.
We have some concerns about the widespread implementation of the incorrect date
coding suggested in discussion paper no. 106.
The examples suggesting the use of this new coding for materials other than
rare books indicate a potential for widespread misapplication of these codes.
We are all familiar with the problem of "printings" being considered new
editions -- this coding would open up the possibility of creating duplicate
records for printings considered to bear incorrect dates. (See example #3, On
title page: 1786; on colophon, reprinted in 1788).
Example #5 using this practice for end-of-year publications and
directories/atlases which bear a "coverage" date also could generate many
duplicate records.
Most alarming is the suggestion to input the correct/incorrect dates in
chronological order. This will make it impossible for bibliographic utilities
and union catalogs to dedup or consolidate records coded under the current
system (when the correct date is given in 008/07-10) and the records where the
incorrect date is the earlier date and is given in that position.
A situation omitted from the discussion is when the first or last volume of a
multivolume set bears an erroneous date. Clear directions to the catalogers to
give precedence to the multiple date coding over the erroneous date coding.
We have to wonder whether the problems solved by this new coding would offset
the new problems it would create, particularly for contemporary imprints.
Crystal Graham
Chair, Cataloging Committee
University of California, San Diego
|