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