[Heb-NACO] 264 bracketed dates: = or that is?

[Robert M. TALBOTT]

Thanks for your response Aaron.

What we're lacking are clear, applicable examples in the HCM.  Personally,
I just don't care what the final answer is, but I think it's very important
that we're all on the same page in the end.  The only way to achieve that
would be to have clear answers with examples in the HCM.

Until we get a new edition of the HCM, I suggest tolerating answers to the
264#1 form-of-date dilemma you might not agree with.  It's important that
we resolve it, but we should also keep in mind that in the larger scheme of
things, the form of the date, so long as the date itself is correct, is
less important than other elements of  the bib record.

Heidi: Perhaps this is one of those areas where we could have a temporary,
work-around rule

B

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Taub, Aaron <atau at loc.gov> wrote:

> Dear Jasmin,
>
> Apologies for my late response.
>
> Regarding point C in your message below, I only put "that is" if the
> Hebrew publishing date is also inferred and is itself in brackets.  If the
> Hebrew publishing date is clearly given and unbracketed, I then put the
> Gregorian calendar in brackets WITHOUT "that is."  Is that incorrect?  Your
> point C seems to suggest that it is.
>
> 775 [2015]
>
> [775, that is, 2015] for when pub. date is inferred
>
> Thanks,
> A
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Heb-naco [mailto:heb-naco-bounces+atau=loc.gov at lists.osu.edu] On
> Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 3:13 PM
> To: rtalbott at library.berkeley.edu; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel
> Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] 264 bracketed dates: = or that is?
>
> 1. You write below "present on the t.p. verso" and "present on the
> publication"; remember that both are equivalent in terms of RDA.  The
> entire body of work is considered the "preferred source of information"
> (formerly, "chief source of information", or "csi").  Where equivalent data
> appears in both vernacular and Roman forms, the "=" is used to show the two
> "parallel" forms.
>
> 2. Unless a work _specifically_ indicates a publication dates, the dates
> in the 264 are bracketed.  Hence, anywhere you have either a _copyright_ or
> a _printing_ date, it will be in brackets.
>
> Putting 1. and 2. together:
>
> A. If the resource gives a date anywhere in the publication in _both_ the
> Hebrew and the Gregorian forms, the 264 would give both, using the = to
> indicate both are present.
> B. If the date is something other than a publication date and appears in
> _both_ the Hebrew and the Gregorian forms, it will appear as [Heb. = Greg.].
> C. If a publication date is ONLY given in the Heb., the Heb. form will
> appear without brackets and "that is" will be added to give the inferred
> Greg. date inside brackets.
> D. If a publication date is ONLY given in the Heb., BUT there is another
> form of the date in the Greg. OR a more detailed Heb. date appears
> elsewhere in the source, the Heb. form will appear without brackets and the
> inferred Greg. date will be given in brackets, without either "=" or "that
> is" because the data is neither equivalent nor inferred.
>
> Capiche?  Others, did I miss anything?
>
> Jasmin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Heb-naco [mailto:heb-naco-bounces at lists.osu.edu] On Behalf Of
> Robert M. TALBOTT
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 2:04 PM
> To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel
> Subject: [Heb-NACO] 264 bracketed dates: = or that is?
>
> Folks:
>
> I've been seeing an awful lot of bracketed dates utilizing the equals
> (=) sign, to wit:
>
> where only a copyright of 774 and a copyright of 2014 are present on the
> t.p. verso
>
> $c [774 = 2014]
>
> As I read the HCM (2.8.6, pp. 47-48), it appears that the equals sign is
> only used in instances where there are two firm dates that are
> unbracketed.  Again, as I understand it, inside brackets, the phrase "that
> is" is used.
>
> where only a copyright of 774 and a copyright of 2014 are present on the
> publication
>
> $c [774, that is, 2014]
>
> Am I wrong? Have things changed?
>
> Thanks
>
> Bob
> --
> Bob Talbott
>
> Principal cataloger/Hebraica cataloger
>
> UC Berkeley
>
> 250 Moffitt
>
> Berkeley, CA 94720
>
> I'm just mad about Saffron
> _______________________________________________
> Heb-naco mailing list
> Heb-naco at lists.osu.edu
> https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
> _______________________________________________
> Heb-naco mailing list
> Heb-naco at lists.osu.edu
> https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
>



-- 
Bob Talbott

Principal cataloger/Hebraica cataloger

UC Berkeley

250 Moffitt

Berkeley, CA 94720

I'm just mad about Saffron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/heb-naco/attachments/20160913/af604ec6/attachment.html>