[Heb-NACO] Date Status (DtSt) and Dates in the fixed field

[Shinohara, Jasmin]

Hi, Cliff,

Your thought about probability is interesting. Nevertheless, our documented practice has been to use the earlier of the two possible dates for both the call no. date and fixed field date. Please see the Classification and Shelflisting Manual, G140 (Dates)<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/G140.pdf__;!!KGKeukY!wEsjQul0DQuZBL-0qOpDxMcEWkZu5YFa_eLlHo6OsaIxAe3j1lxCKGIp_X1Eh7_EuNU6yXeInF6r0BGF2-W0uFdLdIw$ >, where a list of examples is given:

2012
use 2012
MMX
use 2010
[2011]
use 2011
[2008?]
use 2008
[1995 or 1996]
use 1995
1980-2013
use 1980
MMI-MMII
use 2001
MCMXCI-2010
use 1991
1980-[2013]
use 1980
[1965]-2005
use 1965
[1965-2005]
use 1965
[not before March 1, 1800]
use 1800
[not after April 23, 1700]
use 1700
[between May 1,1801 and May 2, 1805]
use 1801
[between 1700 and 1799]
use 1700z [if corporate body, use 1700]
[between 1700 and 1799?]
use 1700z [if corporate body, use 1700]
[between 1990 and 1999]
use 1990z [if corporate body, use 1990]
[between 1990 and 1999?]
use 1990z [if corporate body, use 1990]
[between 1950 and 2012?]
use 1950z [if corporate body, use 1950]

For fixed field dates, per my email from yesterday, please see example in BFAS on DtSt<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/fixedfield/dtst.html__;!!KGKeukY!wEsjQul0DQuZBL-0qOpDxMcEWkZu5YFa_eLlHo6OsaIxAe3j1lxCKGIp_X1Eh7_EuNU6yXeInF6r0BGF2-W0yLj5ZR4$ >.

Probability notwithstanding, a unified, consistent practice serves our users better. Please let me know if there are further questions.

Thanks and kol tuv, Jasmin

From: Heb-naco <heb-naco-bounces at lists.osu.edu> On Behalf Of Cliff Miller via Heb-naco
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 10:20 AM
To: Gottschalk, Haim <hgot at loc.gov>; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel <heb-naco at lists.osu.edu>; Miller, Caroline <crmiller at library.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] Date Status (DtSt) and Dates in the fixed field

Dear Colleagues, I'm working remotely so I cannot check any references at my Seminary Library desk. As I recall the single date "s" is to be used when the date is certain or probable. 5783 might be any of 9 months of 2023
Dear Colleagues,
I'm working remotely so I cannot check any references at my Seminary Library desk.
As I recall the single date "s" is to be used when the date is certain or probable.
5783 might be any of 9 months of 2023 or any of 3 months of 2022.
When the odds are 3 to 1 of the later date, I think we are justified in using the later date and not both years as questionable.
Is not 9 months out of 12 a high probability?
Thank you.
Clifford Miller, speaking for myself and not for
Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary

From: Heb-naco <heb-naco-bounces+clmiller=jtsa.edu at lists.osu.edu<mailto:heb-naco-bounces+clmiller=jtsa.edu at lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Gottschalk, Haim via Heb-naco
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 5:25 PM
To: Miller, Caroline <crmiller at library.ucla.edu<mailto:crmiller at library.ucla.edu>>; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel <heb-naco at lists.osu.edu<mailto:heb-naco at lists.osu.edu>>
Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] Date Status (DtSt) and Dates in the fixed field


CAUTION: This email originated from outside JTSA. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Caroline, Haim here. What I do is use the first date as THE date with the DtSt: s. Granted we don't know fully if the date is 2012 or 2013, but this is the practice we do. The questionable date is when there is no date whatsoever in
Hi Caroline,

Haim here.

What I do is use the first date as THE date with the DtSt: s. Granted we don't know fully if the date is 2012 or 2013, but this is the practice we do. The questionable date is when there is no date whatsoever in the book and we have to surmise when it was published. I do use a detailed date (DtSt: e) when I have the month available, such as erev Rosh Hodesh Nisan, plus year.

I hope that this helps

Haim
Expressing my views. Ideas & opinions in this email are not intended to represent those of the Library of Congress or its staff.

From: Heb-naco <heb-naco-bounces at lists.osu.edu<mailto:heb-naco-bounces at lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Miller, Caroline via Heb-naco
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 4:49 PM
To: HEB-NACO List Posting (heb-naco at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu<mailto:heb-naco at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu>) <heb-naco at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu<mailto:heb-naco at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu>>
Subject: [Heb-NACO] Date Status (DtSt) and Dates in the fixed field

All, This may sound like a newbie question but I have never seen an official policy on coding the date status for materials that only have a Hebrew date. It's clear in RDA and the PS's how to transcribe the date in the 264. Example
All,

This may sound like a newbie question but I have never seen an official policy on coding the date status for materials that only have a Hebrew date.  It's clear in RDA and the PS's how to transcribe the date in the 264.   Example from the book I'm cataloging:

673 [1912 or 1913]

I have seen this coded in the fixed field as:

DtSt: s      Dates 1912 ,

DtSt: q      Dates 1912 ,   1913

Is there an official policy on MARC coding for these fixed fields?  I've done a little hunting on Heb-NACO and couldn't find any official guidance.

Thanks.

Caroline

Caroline R. Miller
Team Leader, Discovery Team
UCLA Library Resource Acquisitions and Metadata Services
2400 Life Sciences Building
621 Charles E Young Drive South
Box 957230
Los Angeles, CA  90095-7230



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/heb-naco/attachments/20221115/9b0c86a5/attachment-0001.html>