Date of Production and Date of Manufacture elements

One Response to Date of Production and Date of Manufacture elements

1. Francis Lapka says:

   January 6, 2014 at 4:25 pm

   1. Should CC:DA develop a change proposal to address this situation?
   FL: Yes.

   2. Should the proposal suggest changes for both Date of Production and Date of Manufacture?
   FL: Yes*

   3. Should the new language follow that for Date of Publication (RDA 2.8.6.2), or should it be simplified to just offer:
   a. a source within the resource itself
   b. any source
   FL: Date of Manufacture should follow the language of Date of Publication. Date of Production should not.

   4. If based on Date of Publication, should any of the final paragraphs be omitted? Does that decision apply to both Date of Production and Date of Manufacture?
   FL: For Date of Manufacture, no, do not omit.

   * For Date of Production, the instruction at 2.7.6.2 (“Take dates of production from any source.”) is appropriate. Most unpublished resources merit application of the exception at 2.2.4, “Do not indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the resource itself if the resource is of a type that does not normally carry identifying information (e.g., a photograph, a naturally occurring object, a collection).” In this light 2.7.6.7 Archival Resources and Collections seems illogical: “If no date can be found in the resource or determined from any other source, estimate the nearest year, decade, century, or other interval as precisely as possible. Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the resource itself (see 2.2.4).”

   Given the character of unpublished resources, it would seem logical to me that all elements of the production statement should name “any source” for source of information. I’m not convinced that any of these should be transcribed elements.

   Francis
   RBMS Liaison

   Log in to Reply