Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata
  • DCRM(B) 4A5 advises, "If any of the original details relating to the publication, distribution, etc., area are covered by a label or other means showing later information, transcribe the later information. If the original details are visible or otherwise available, transcribe or give them in a note." If the label does not cover the imprint, Houghton catalogers will transcribe the original imprint in the 264, and trace the information from the label as a former owner and transcribe the label in a 562 holdings note.
  • If the copyright date and the imprint date are the same, do not make an additional 264 for the copyright date.
  •  When working with material that is mis-dated in the imprint, catalogers are reminded that the correct date goes in the 008 and the mistaken date goes in the 046, even though Aleph currently does not index the 046. (http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd046.html)  

For example:

 Imprint reads: London: Printed by John Smith, 1970 [i.e. 1790]. 

    • 008 should be coded 's' and '1790'
    • 046 should be coded "##$ax$c1970"

For almanacs that are dated the same year for which they are issued, correct the date to the year prior, though add a question mark due to the conjectural nature. 

For example:

Oxford almanack for ... 1690. London: Printed for the proprietors, 1690 [i.e. 1689?] 

    • 008 should be coded 's' and '1689'
    • 046 should be coded "##$ax$c1690"

 

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤

Music catalogers follow a slightly more complex workflow with regard to the 264 field: 

    •  If the copyright date and the imprint date are the same, do make an additional 264 for the copyright date; be sure to include "t" date in 008 even when they match. (Per MLA Best Practices; note that while the Best Practices document makes this recommendation for scores only, Ward catalogers will apply it to all music materials: scores, librettos, &c.)
    • If the date of publication is inferred, resulting in a bracketed date in the 264_1 $c, do make an explanatory 500 note. For example,  
      • 264_1 $a Milano : $b Sonzogi, $c [1902]
      • 500 __ $a Date of publication inferred from date of first performance.
    • If the date of publication of a score is inferred from a copyright date of 1945 or earlier, do add a question mark to the end of the 264_1 $c. There is no need for an explanatory 500 note in this case. For example,
      • 264_1 $a Wien : $b Glocken-Verlag, $c [1943?]
      • 264_4 $c ©1943
    • Due to fact that RDA 2.11.1.3 ("If the resource has multiple copyright dates that apply to a single aspect (e.g., text, sound, or graphics), record only the latest copyright date") has superseded AACR2 LCRI 1.4F6 (whose instructions were to “Ignore copyright renewal dates for works first copyrighted before 1978") always include a 500 note with all of the copyright dates recorded—so that records which should match but which will now be recorded with different copyright dates, can be correctly linked after the fact. For example: 
      • 500 __ $a Copyright noted at foot of caption as “1925/1936”.
  • No labels
https://wiki.harvard.edu/confluence/display/HoughtonTechnicalServices/IV.10.+264
wiki.harvard.edu
crawl=CC-MAIN-2018-17
40799
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:SKEJOY5LTXNWJKAUBZHGVYUOYLVZIY4Z
<urn:uuid:ad529628-7697-4c5e-a9dd-2885f5f9691c>
2018-04-19T21:07:05Z
34.195.131.87
text/html
sha1:Q3SM2CGQSP2WHQBSDFL4FOWVQZCRBBQU
<urn:uuid:8176759b-6340-47c5-bf54-5cdd6b4d41ce>
https://wiki.harvard.edu/confluence/display/HoughtonTechnicalServices/IV.10.+264
length
response
<urn:uuid:b650f61a-90a2-4961-ac74-1daf8efb0f8b>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-45-105-213.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2018-17
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for April 2018
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf