 |
 |
The LC-PCC PS for 2.8.6.6 comes down clearly on the side of Option 2. I am copying it below, with apologies for the way the formatting came out.
A number of PCC organizations prefer Option 1, but the additional detail is not required.
Amy
Amy Turner
Monographic Cataloger and Authority Control Coordinator
Duke University Libraries
LC-PCC PS for
2.8.6.6[log in to unmask]" alt="http://access.rdatoolkit.org/images/rdalink.png">
DATE OF PUBLICATION NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE RESOURCE
Items Lacking a Publication Date
LC practice/PCC practice: Supply
a date of publication if possible, using the guidelines below, rather than give
“[date of publication not identified].” Follow the instructions in
1.9.2[log in to unmask]" alt="http://access.rdatoolkit.org/images/rdalink.png"> for supplied dates,
including the use of the question mark with probable dates.
A. If an item lacking a publication date contains only a copyright date, apply the following in the order listed:
1.
Supply a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright date, in square brackets, if it seems reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication
date.
EXAMPLE
Title page verso
|
Copyright ©2009 |
Prefaced signed
|
June 2009 |
Date of publication
|
not given |
Transcription
|
264 |
$a … $b … $c [2009] |
008/06 Type of date
|
s |
008/07-10
|
2009 |
008/11-14
|
#### |
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Stephen Early
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 2:23 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Copyright, RDA, MARC 264: both second indicator 1 and 4 or 1 only?
This is a current topic on RDA-L, which I would really like to have confirmed by PCC:
Regarding the proper PCC endorsed way to record date of publication in MARC when the _only_ date available is copyright, which option is correct and where is it documented? (example below cribbed and modified from the one posted
at RDA-L)
Option 1
DtSt: t
Dates: 2014,2014
264 _1 $a Eugene, Oregon : $b Pickwick Publications, $c [2014]
264 _4 $a ©2014
Or
Option 2
DtSt: s
Dates: 2014
264 _1 $a Eugene, Oregon : $b Pickwick Publications, $c [2014]
I have a 2013 AUTOCAT email from an LC employee claiming that the Option 2 is preferred and 2013 personal emails from catalogers at a PCC level former RDA-test institution strongly claiming that Option 1 is preferred.
And I now see a recent email at RDA-L also advocating Option 2. But I would still like PCC confirmation.
Stephen T. Early
Cataloger
Center for Research Libraries
6050 S. Kenwood
Chicago, IL 60637
773-955-4545 x326
CRL website: www.crl.edu