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:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

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]

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark Ehlert
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 10:57 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Question re: RDA, 264 at DtSt ff

 

Brueck, Vicki <[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/>