Based on Wikipedia (dangerous, I know), there are two formats for dates in the ISO 8601 standard: the basic format, without hyphens, and the extended format, with hyphens. DCM Z1 went with the basic format, which is used elsewhere in the MARC Formats for recording dates (Field 033, for example).
Head, Authorities and Specialty Cataloging
University of Maryland
My memory (I have the standard lying around here somewhere but I can't find it just now) is that the ISO standard allows for year-month-day dates to be recorded either with or without hyphens, and it's simply NACO practice to omit the hyphens unless EDTF is in play. It would certainly be easier on everyone if hyphens were used all the time; then we wouldn't have to remember when to use them and when not.
Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Twitter: GaryLStrawn
Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
e-mail: [log in to unmask] voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2008.22.409
Thanks for these appropriately curmudgeonly exhortations. I especially commend your advocacy of copy-and-paste, and looking at the actual authority instead of acting on a list of search results alone.
At the Folger, we have created in Connexion a number of local constant data records for the 3xx fields, focusing on recurring individual attributes and clusters of attributes. For example, if I am creating a NAR for a printer, I invoke the CD "printer" which inserts appropriate fields. I don't need to remember which field contains gender or language: typing ctrl-b and 'male' or 'eng' inserts the fields properly tagged and formatted. It's taken a long time to set up, but we believe it will easily pay off.
General question about the form of calendar dates in the 046. I do not have direct access to ISO 8601, but everything I read about formulating calendar dates--with the exception of LC-PCC PS 184.108.40.206--states that year-month-day is to be represented yyyy-mm-dd, that is, with the hyphens (http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/iso8601.htm); some sources also give the alternative as yyyymmdd (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601#Calendar_dates). If these sources are correct, why did LC-PCC choose to require the alternative formulation? It's harder to read, and therefore proofread. By clashing with the required yyyy-mm formulation, it's non-intuitive, a cataloger's shibboleth.
Can anyone involved with that decision speak to this?
Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | [log in to unmask] | 202.675-0369 | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 | www. folger.edu
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gary L Strawn
Sent: Monday, 13 April 2015 09:35
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Best practices in updating authority records
[DJL: ] <...>
2) If you're going to use the 046 field, read the documentation; you aren't free to guess or make something up. Common errors:
If you only have a month and a year, a hyphen is required (this does not mean you necessarily have "$2 edtf")
If you have "$2 edtf" then hyphens are *required* between year and month, and month and day
The order of date elements is year-month-day. Not year-day-month; not month-day-year; not day-month-year. Largest to smallest in scope; it's actually quite simple.