Print

Print


Either is correct except that the copyright date is entered in $c in the 264 4 (Option 1), not $a.

Option 2 is preferred by LC internally (probably only to save time).

Logic suggests that Option 1 is only necessary if the copyright date differs from the date in the 264 1.

PCC???

John G. Marr
DACS
Zimmerman Library
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87010
[log in to unmask]

         **"I really like to know the reasons for what I do!"**
                                             Martha Watson

Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but sharing is permitted.




From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Early
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 12:23 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 (c)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
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
CRL website: www.crl.edu<http://www.crl.edu>