Print

Print


Yes, but I think OCLC's Bib Formats still reflect A2 rules, not the RDA 
instructions.

Jasmin Nof
Hebraica Cataloging Librarian
University of Pennsylvania
Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center
3420 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206
T. 215-746-6397
F. 215-573-9610
[log in to unmask]

On 9/4/2012 11:58 AM, Amy Turner wrote:
>
> OCLC guidelines say to ignore when the book was received when 
> determining what date[s] to record.    I hope the chart below goes 
> through email OK.  It is from the section on 260 $c of Bibliographic 
> Formats and Standards.   I think the idea is to describe the book as 
> it presents itself, and this makes sense to me.    Both the old and 
> the new LCPSs seem to go against the “transcribe what you see” 
> principle that is in force in other cases.
>
> Amy
>
> *Summary of Field 260 **‡**c, Date of Publication*
>
> 	
>
> *Book*
>
> 	
>
> *Publication Date*
>
> 	
>
> *Copyright Date*
>
> 	
>
> *Printing Date*
>
> 	
>
> *Field 260 **‡**c *
>
> 	
>
> *DtSt /
> Date1*
>
>
> 	
> 	
> 	
> 	
> 	
>
> Received in [year]; publication date in year following
>
> 	
>
> 2002 [book received in 2001]
>
> 	
> 	
> 	
>
> 2002
>
> 	
>
> s / 2002
>
> Received in [year]; copyright date in year following
>
> 	
> 	
>
> c2002 [book received in 2001]
>
> 	
> 	
>
> c2002
>
> 	
>
> s / 2002
>
> *From:*Program for Cooperative Cataloging 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Hall, Jack
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 04, 2012 10:44 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] Question re: RDA, 264 at DtSt ff
>
> I agree with Mark that the earlier version makes more sense. If you 
> received it that year, surely it was published in that year. Something 
> like that could have legal implications.
>
> Jack Hall
>
> Manager of Cataloging Services
>
> Linguistics Librarian
>
> University of Houston Libraries
>
> Houston, TX 77204-2000
>
> phone: 713 743 9687
>
> fax: 713 743 9748
>
> email: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> *From:*Program for Cooperative Cataloging 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
> <mailto:[mailto:[log in to unmask]]> *On Behalf Of *Mark Ehlert
> *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 10:57 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] Question re: RDA, 264 at DtSt ff
>
> Brueck, Vicki <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> 
> wrote:
>
> In the LCPS for 2.8.6.6 there is an example showing an optional 
> inclusion of a copyright date in addition to a probable publishing 
> date and in the example the value for 008/06 Type of date is “t.”
>
>
> Speaking of which, this example is a recent change in practice by LC.  
> The older version of LCPS 2.8.6.6, A1. read: "If the copyright date is 
> for the year following the year in which the publication is received, 
> supply a date of publication that corresponds to the year of 
> receipt."  Now it reads: "If the copyright date is for the year 
> following the year in which the publication is received, supply a date 
> of publication that corresponds to the copyright date."  In both 
> cases, the "t" code is employed.  The earlier version makes more sense 
> to me.
>
> -- 
> 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
> <http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>
>