LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for MARC Archives


MARC Archives

MARC Archives


[email protected]


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

MARC Home

MARC Home

MARC  December 1997

MARC December 1997

Subject:

Discussion Paper No. 106

From:

John Attig <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

USMARC <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 26 Nov 1997 12:59:50 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (117 lines)

As one of the "authors" of Discussion Paper No.  106 (New Type of Date
code), let me make a preliminary attempt to answer the questions at the end
of the paper (and also some other issues raised).

1.  What do local systems and vendors do with the different types
of dates now?  Will the addition of another type be of value or
would expansion of an existing one be more useful?

More specifically, what processing do systems do on 008/06 (as opposed to
the dates codes in 008/07-14)?  My suspicion -- which I hope others will
confirm or deny -- is that byte 6 is used almost exclusively to determine
how to process the date elements in bytes 7-14.  In other words, Type of
date codes "c" "d" "i" "k" "m" are used to specify matching within the
range between the two dates; codes "p" "r" and "t" are used to specify
matching on either date as a distinct single date; etc.  If this is true,
then 008/06 contains INFORMATION about the type of date from which is
deduced a smaller number of processing choices; the present request is for
a distinct code, but the processing choice is the same as for code "t" (and
probably "p" and "r").  This is another example in the formats of where we
code one thing (the nature of the dates) but use the information is
somewhat different ways (how to process the date elements); if we actually
coded for the latter, there would be fewer codes needed.

Let me make it clear that the information function of the new code (being
able to identify bibliographic records containing corrected dates) is far
less important than the processing function -- that we be able to qualify
searches by either the given date or the corrected date -- and that the
processing requirements are the same as those for existing codes
(particularly "t").

2.  Many non-early and non-rare materials have the above date
characteristics.  Would practices change for all of these?  How
about atlases which regularly have "incorrect" dates on the item
since the atlas is for the next year?  Would the added complexity
of coding be valuable for current material?

It is certainly true that publishers occasionally make typographical errors
in publication dates (although this is much less common than in the
hand-press period) or incorrectly estimate when an item will actually be
published (items with 1998 publication dates, but received in Nov. 1997,
for example).  In the former case, I think most catalogers would include a
correction in 260$c if they are aware of the error and knew the correct
date.  The latter case, on the other hand, comes up for discussion almost
every December and I'm not sure that there is a consensus about whether the
corrected date should be added; I don't believe that LC routinely does this
in upgrading CIP records.  And in the case of the atlases noted in the
question, if the date is treated as a coverage date rather than a date of
publication, then this coding would not be appropriate; if the publication
date is "anticipated" by the publisher, I'm not sure that catalogers would
routinely correct the date in 260$c.  In other words, outside of rare
materials, I'm not at all sure how widespread is the practice of correcting
dates in 260$c -- and if the correction is not given in 260$c, then this
coding would not be appropriate in 008.  My own approach is pragmatic: once
I have decided that it is worthwhile to record a correction in 260$c, then
I want to make sure that a user can retrieve this item using either the
given or the corrected date.  Whether the item is rare or old or not may be
one factor in my decision whether to record the corrected date, but it
shouldn't be a factor in determining whether the record is retrievable.

3.  Can a value be limited to early printed books?

Probably not, but (as indicated above) I'm not sure that is necessary.

4.  Could any of the other existing date type codes be expanded to
include these dates, such as value m?

See the answer to question 1.  Functionally, the new code works like code
"t"; the only difference is that the information content identifies Date 2
in one case as a given date and in the other as a copyright date.  I would
hope (given that we are already coding 008/06 in this way) that the new
code could be defined and that it would not be too difficult for processing
programs to treat code "x" like code "t".  Alternatively, we could redefine
code "t" (or one of the other codes) so that it would cover two quite
distinct cases in which we treat Date 2 as an alternative single date.
Personally, I think this would be terribly confusing.  Another alternative
would be to rework 008/06 completely, using fewer codes to simply indicate
different ways of processing the date elements:  single date, two single
dates, range of dates, detailed date, etc.  I suspect that this would be
(a) more invasive than a new type code, and (b) a loss of the ability to
make some distinctions other than date processing based on this value
(e.g., being able to pull out current and/or ceased serials).

X.  The Discussion Paper notes that one of the examples is not in fact a
corrected date.  That example shows a given date based on the Julian
calendar which has been "corrected" (as instructed in the rules) by adding
the Gregorian date.  It is true that this is not really a corrected date;
"normalized" might be a better term.  There are other cases in which such
normalization takes place: where the given date follows a calendar such as
the Hebrew calendar or the Roman "ab urbe condita" calendar or the British
legal calendar or the Japanese calendar based on the imperial eras.  Is
this really another distinctive date type ("Gregorian date/Non-Gregorian
date")?  I suspect that in most of the cases above, there is no point in
recording the non-Gregorian date in 008 because it isn't a 4-character
numeric or (in the case of the Hebrew or Roman calendars) it is unlikely to
be confused with a Gregorian date; only in the case of the Julian calendar
-- which is identical in form to the Gregorian year and is easily
mis-identified as a Gregorian year -- is it important both to record the
Gregorian year in 260$c and (because it appears on the item) to be able to
retrieve on the non-Gregorian year.  For this reason, it seemed to us that
this case was not that different from the corrected dates;
"corrected/normalized" would be a more accurate description and should
probably be included in the code description in the USMARC documentation.

In summary, I think that the authors of this change request are hoping that
these questions can be resolved without too much difficulty.  We are
dealing with a very real issue involving retrieval of bibliographic
information, a situation in which we have felt the need to record two dates
in the imprint area of the description -- one because it appears on the
item and one because it is the correct date -- and in which we cannot
presently use the date appearing on the item to retrieve the record.  We
need to find a way to fix this.

        John Attig
        Penn State University Libraries
        814/865-1755
        [log in to unmask]

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

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
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
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 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
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
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
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 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
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager