----------------------------Original message----------------------------
     In addition to the rule Velma Parker has cited, the other application
     and rule that may relate to the date(s) in the 260 field and be cause
     for some apparent inconsistencies (different expressions of
     catalogers' judgment) are the application under 4F1 in "Cartographic
     Materials," p. 77-78, and rule 4F6 in "Cartographic Materials" (1.4F6
     in AACR2R).
 
     Under the former, if a publication, copyright, or printing date is
     lacking on the item, one of the ways a publication date can be
     inferred is from a "printing or publisher's code" (such as the last 2
     digits in a CIA map code number), in which case the date code is
     inferred to represent a publication date and is recorded in square
     brackets, presumably in subfield c.  And that may very well be a
     printing date.
 
     Under the latter rule, if the date of publication is unknown, give the
     copyright date, or in its absence, the date of manufacture, indicated
     as such, in its place.  The example given is ", 1967 printing."  And I
     figure that also should be in subfield c.  Is that right?
 
     When the cataloger feels knowledgeable about the publisher, he or she
     probably uses judgment in inferring publication date from printing
     date in some cases (USGS maps come to mind), and perhaps that is not
     explicitly covered in the rules.  And then I think I've probably made
     a further jump (carelessness, or inconsistency) in leaving off square
     brackets on some of those inferred publication dates.  With a
     publisher you are less familiar with, you might have a tendency to
     stick more closely to the rules and label a printing date as such.
     (You may even be making an interpretation of what is a printing date
     and what is a publication date, if they are not explicitly labelled.)
 
     Nancy Kandoian
     [log in to unmask]
 
 
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: printing/publishing dates
Author:  Velma Parker <[log in to unmask]> at Internet
Date:    11/4/96 12:00 PM
 
 
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Chris
According to the rules in "Cartographic materials: a manual of
interpretation of AACR2", the publication date is always recorded.  If
both the date of publication and the date of printing are present, the
date of publication is recorded first and the date of printing may be
added in parentheses after.  See rule 4G4 (or if
you are using AACR2R rule 3.4G2).  In tag 269 an example could be:
$aAustin :$bTexas Dept. of Water Resources,$c1977$g(1978 printing).
The recording of the printing date is optional and should follow
institutional guidelines.  If it is recorded in the record at all, the
above is the easiest and simplest way of doing so.
 
Call numbers should have the date of situation.  If there is no indication
otherwise, then the date of situation is assumed to be that of the date of
publication, or as near as is possible to tell.  The printing date should
not be used as the date of situation in the call number.  The Library of
Congress "Map Cataloging Manual" gives instruction on recording a second
date on page 1.21.  Second dates are to be used for "facsimiles and
formally published reprints".  For these, the second date is the last
element in the call number: "G4314.C5A3 1882 .S7 1967".
 
Hope this helps
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Nancy Kandoian's question about the new printing of the
>Yosemite map brings up an embarrassingly elementary
>cataloging question:
>
>When a map's printing date and publication date differ, >which
date is supposed to go in the 260c (and the 008 >publication
date slot)? It's my impression that the great >majority of
libraries that contribute to OCLC use the >printing date here,
certainly in the case of USGS maps where >the tiny date just
beyond the lower right edge of the >neatline gets put in the
260c. However, some libraries >(including, often, LC) prefer to
use the publication date in >the 260c and to put the printing
date in subfield g of the >260 (in parentheses). Contrast OCLC
19481445 (GPO) and >21445385 (DLC) for an example. (It may be
relevant that the >(book) catalogers in this library, if I've
understood them >correctly, go so far as to argue that the
printing date,
>if it needs to be recorded at all, should go in a local
>note.)
>
>A related issue is what to do with the call
>number. Shouldn't the date in the call number be the
>publication date rather than the printing date since that
>must be closer to the date of situation? And, in the case
>of a reprint, shouldn't one then add the printing date after
>the author Cutter? This doesn't exactly seem to be what
>libraries usually do, but see OCLC 25170639 for an example
>(from GIS).
>
>I realize that the concepts "publication date" and
>"printing date" don't always fit map publishing practices
>very well and that the whole question is somewhat
>complicated by the USGS updating patterns about which Nancy
>writes. But I'm really inquiring about the cataloging rules.
>
>Please forgive my asking about what may be an ancient map
>cataloging issue. It's one I feel very confused about and
>certainly one on which map catalogers are extremely
>inconsistent.
>
>Thanks for any answers.
>
>Chris Winters
>University of Chicago Library
>
>Internet:        [log in to unmask]
>
>
 
--
Velma Parker
National Archives of Canada
[log in to unmask]   Internet: [log in to unmask]
(613)996-7611  Fax: (613)995-6575