CC:DA/JSC Rep/KPG/2013/5
Discussion paper:
Date of Production and Date of Manufacture elements: should a priority order be provided to prefer data in the resource itself first?
-
Recent posts
- CC:DA Task Force to Review Chinese Rare Book Cataloging Guidelines
- Library of Congress Report, 2019 Midwinter Meeting
- PCC Report for CC:DA at ALA Midwinter, Seattle, January 26, 2019
- Chair’s Report on CC:DA Motions and Other Actions, July-December 2018
- Minutes of the meeting held at the 2018 ALA Midwinter Meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana June 23 and 25, 2018 Draft
Recent comments
- Kathy Glennan on Expanding RDA 6.29.1.3, Laws Governing More Than One Jurisdiction
- Amanda Ros on Adding Controlled Vocabulary to RDA 3.19.6, Regional Encoding, and to the Glossary
- Amanda Ros on Adding Controlled Vocabulary to RDA 3.19.6, Regional Encoding, and to the Glossary
- Amanda Ros on Adding Controlled Vocabulary to RDA 3.19.6, Regional Encoding, and to the Glossary
- Amanda Ros on Adding Controlled Vocabulary to RDA 3.19.6, Regional Encoding, and to the Glossary
Archives
Comment policy
Only current CC:DA members and liaisons are authorized to comment on posts. Others who wish to contribute to CC:DA's discussions are invited to provide input by contacting the Chair, a member of the Committee, or their appropriate liaison.
New CC:DA members and liaisons will be assigned an account for the CC:DA Blog during the month of their initial appointment. For assistance with an account contact the CC:DA Webmaster.
All first-time comments on this site are moderated. We ask that all comments be relevant to the post to which they are directed and maintain professional courtesy.
All categories
Tag cloud
agenda ALA2012 ALA2013 ALA2014 ALA2015 ALA2016 ALA proposal Annual 2012 Annual 2013 Annual 2014 Annual 2015 Behrens British Library Canadian Committee on Cataloguing Chair's report corporate bodies Dunsire European Regional Representative Glennan Iseminger JSC JSC rep Lapka Leonard Library of Congress McGrath Midwinter 2012 Midwinter 2013 Midwinter 2014 Midwinter 2016 minutes music Music Working Group (JSC) Myers OLAC PCC Rendall Reser response Robare Rolla roster RSC Shrader SnyderLinks
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