2 messages:
 
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
>Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 11:03:02 -0700
>From: Mary Larsgaard <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Cataloging: 045 Time codes? (fwd)
 
 
045$b seems both useful and easy to fill out -
and to the best of my (limited) knowledge of
this field, if you fill out $b you probably don't
need to fill out $a.
 
Either a 500 with Date of Situation OR a title
that had the date of data in it would be sufficient
reason for using 045.
 
Mary Larsgaard
UCSB
At 09:48 AM 9/24/98 -0400, you wrote:
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 00:00:39
>From: John Buelow <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Cataloging: 045 Time codes?
>
>[this message is being cross-posted on AUTOCAT]
>
>
>Can anyone comment on the usefulness of field 045 Time Period of Content to
>describe Date of Situation when cataloging in the Map format?  I assume the
>field would be used only when a 500 Date of Situation note is also present.
> If so, do I prefer to use the code in subfield |a, the formatted date in
>subfield |b, or both?
>
>
>John Buelow
>New York Historical Society
>[log in to unmask]
>
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
>From: Ken Grabach   <[log in to unmask]>
 
This is an interesting question, that I have wondered about, myself.  My
personal feeling is that it is useful when the work in question portrays a
specific period of historical time or a range of eras, then the 045 has
usefulness.  It can allow a more precise or even more general range of
dates than can the years of a 651 subfield of History.  If the item merely
shows the situation at the time of publication, the 260 subfield covers
that just fine, thank you.
 
_________________________________________
Ken Grabach         <[log in to unmask]>
Documents Dept.
Miami University Libraries
Oxford, Ohio  45056  USA