Andrew Young and the making of modern Atlanta / Andrew Young, Harvey Newman and Andrea Young. (OCLC #960450467)

This title has a publication date of 2016, but a copyright date of 2017. Which goes into the LC call number?

In the Library of Congress Classification and Shelflisting Manual, in section G 140 on Dates, it says to add the date of publication to all monographs, specifying that the date of publication is taken from 264ǂc. Copyright date should only be used here if the date of publication is not identified.


Back talk from Appalachia [electronic resource] : confronting stereotypes / edited by Dwight B. Billings, Gurney Norman, and Katherine Ledford ; foreword by Ronald D. Eller. (OCLC #828424699)

The only clear date on this document is the copyright date on the title page verso (1999) so I was a little wary of the only good/popular copy I found in OCLC which used the date [2001]. It did also include an explanatory note:

    500 __ ǂa Originally published: Confronting Appalachian
        stereotypes. Lexington : University Press of Kentucky, 1999.

indicating that the publication as it existed in 1999 had a different title, so a later date of publication for this one seemed reasonable.

The CIP block (which I try to ignore for cataloging!) includes as a suggested call number:

    F210 .C66 2001

and the (distribution?) date provided with the metadata from the publisher (with whom my library works closely) was November 16, 2000. With all of this data, I was comfortable adding our holdings to the record with supplied date [2001].


Russian-English conversation book = Russko-angliĭskiĭ razgovornik / E.M. Coff and F.M. Rozhkova. (OCLC #46638889)

One reason to not limit your OCLC search by date is that the limit uses the fixed field copy of the date, which is easier to do math/comparison with than the variable field 260/264ǂc (which may include phrases like [not before 1800] and dates in other calendars) but in my experience is also coded incorrectly more often than the variable field.

An otherwise good record I found for this title had 1960 in the 260ǂc and the call number, but 1950 in the fixed field (now corrected).


Восточно-Померанская наступательная операция советских войск, февр.-март 1945 г. : ǂb военно-исторический очерк / ǂc А.С. Завялов, Т.Е. Калядин. (OCLC #10200562)

I did find an individual record for this small atlas, but I noticed that a copy of the resource that it typically accompanies is already in our collection. Rather than catalog the atlas separately, I added an additional mfhd to our main record:

852 0_ ‡b idrc,scott ‡h D765.2.P6 ‡i Z3 Atlas

Philo, with an English translation by F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker. (OCLC #3142478)

We own two full sets of this title (each with 10 main volumes + 2 supplements); one is an original printing (title page says 1929) and one is a reprint from the 1980’s. They were on separate records (with one set’s supplements each on their own records) and used different classifications and enumerations. Their content was the same (and copies similar enough to be on the same record) so I wanted to bring them together, both in the catalog and on the shelf.

I cataloged both sets on the same record, each with their own holdings record. I modified the call number on the reprint (adding ‘b’ to the end) so that each set would be filed together as a whole, and so that the volumes would not be flagged as duplicates.


RDA Tip of the Week: Supplied dates

When the date of publication is not found on the resource itself, you can indicate that in an RDA record with a statement like [Date of publication not identified] (RDA, but it is more helpful to supply a probable date or date range if you can. These are recorded in brackets with phrases like the ones in RDA 1.9.2:

   [1951 or 1952]
   [between 1940 and 1980]
   [not after 1600]
   [not before 1982]

AACR2 (1.4F7) allowed the [between 1981 and 1993] construction, but only for dates fewer than 20 years apart.


Environmental geology today / Robert L. McConnell, Daniel C. Abel. (OCLC #635477370)

More like Environmental geology tomorrow! Though we have had the book in hand since February 2014, it has copyright date 2015 (even on the publisher web site) and no stated publication date.

The OCLC BibFormats page for field 260 has a nice table that says: in the case where the book is received one year but only has a copyright date of the following year, it should be treated as having a single date (the copyright date).


RDA Tip of the Week: Copyright when?

Under RDA, Copyright Date is an element separate from Date of Publication and Date of Distribution. When it is recorded in the current MARC standard, it appears in its own 264 field:

    264 _4 ǂc ©2014

Note that this 264 has second indicator 4 (to indicate Copyright Date Notice), the copyright symbol and date appear in subfield c, and that subfield is the only one in this field.

Copyright dates appear in many RDA records, though they are rarely technically required. RDA 2.11 says that Copyright Date is a core element if neither the Date of Publication nor the Date of Distribution is identified. That means, if you have not written anything down for date of publication or distribution, and you have a copyright date available, you must record it as such.

However, LC-PCC PS for RDA includes instructions to supply a publication date using the copyright date when possible, if it makes sense to do so. With the publication date identified, copyright date is no longer core, so need not be recorded!

So why do all of these RDA records have copyright dates in them? I personally feel weird supplying information without indicating why, and the copyright date notice serves as a justifying note. Also, the copyright symbol is more fun to type than c was; snag my macro if you’re having trouble with it.

Even if not core, recording copyright date is allowed, and creates a fuller record. At my library, we have as policy for our RDA original cataloging that we include the copyright date notice when it was used to supply the publication date.