<html><head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head><body style="font-family: Bell MT;" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
text="#000000"><div style="font-family: Bell MT;"><span
style="font-family: Bell MT;">If it's certain (as far as we can be
certain) that the date was expressed "local style"</span> (that is, "10
January 1494/95" means 1495 by our Gregorian calendar), then the date is
recorded as 1495. (MARC 046 can be used to make sure 1494 is covered
for searching.) If however the "1494/95" expresses uncertainty as to
which year is meant, then it is recorded as "1494 or 1495". In either
case, an explanatory note is called for.<br><br>The common form of
expression ("1494/95") is inherently problematic, because without
further elucidation, its meaning is uncertain - but there it is,
embedded in many decades of usage. I don't use the "1494/95" form
myself, but sometimes it has to be quoted.<br><br>ISTC usage is a little
different - they seem to assume that the form "1494/95" means 1495 in
all cases (despite the sentence beginning "Occasionally ...", and
perhaps that's the way it's standardized in ISTC records. Also, "after
1500" might better be expressed in a catalogue record as "not before
1501".<br><br>John Lancaster<br><br><br><span>Noble, Richard wrote:</span><br><blockquote
cite="mid:CAO86_Rq4F9F_1wYFj9Ge7m9fZw+K-8cNY6zH2fM_v_XGJ9=Ruw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">How have those of you
who regularly catalog incunabula dealt with the situation addresses in
the following passages from <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://istc.bl.uk/help.html">http://istc.bl.uk/help.html</a> ?</div><div
class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div
class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">The
analogous situation in the place and period I started out with, Britain
c18, was that of legal year dates between 1 January and Lady Day (25
March): transcribed year recorded in the data as Gregorian year--e.g.
1724/5 = 1725. But for this earlier period would q dates be appropriate
in MARC ff, reflecting the residual doubt in these cases--e.g. Venice 25
January 1483/84 would be treated as "1483 or 1484"?</div><div
class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div
class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">This
does affect searching in the WorldCat, which is frustrating enough as
it is for a temporary incunabulist.</div><div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div
class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">ISTC
Help:</div><div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div
class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">"In
printing towns where the year-number commonly changed on a day other
than 1 January, such as Venice (1 March), Florence (25 March), and
Paris (Easter), year dates from the early part of the year are often
expressed in such forms as 1491/92, 1499/1500. Occasionally a
printer can be shown to have used both styles of dating, common or
local, indifferently, and decision is accordingly uncertain unless
documentary or physical evidence (from types or woodcuts) is
available. On rare occasions the date as printed is impossible in
any system."\</div><div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div
class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">"Because
of the variety of expressions of date of printing
(e.g., "[14]78", "not before Aug. 1479", "between Apr. 1484 and
1486", "15 Feb. 1499/1500", "after 1500"), ISTC uses a separate
field for the standardized year of printing. The dates just quoted
are standardized as 1478, 1479, 1484-86, 1500, and 1501. These
year-codes are not displayed but are drawn upon in searches
involving date-ranging and sorting. They also enable rough
statistical work to be undertaken, though owing to the large
quantity of undated and not closely datable incunabula, the results
of such enquiries are always likely to be in varying degrees
imprecise. Undated books where there is not enough evidence to hand
even to estimate a date are said to be "undated", and these are not
coded for date-ranging purposes."</div><div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div><div
class="gmail_signature"><font face="'courier new', monospace">RICHARD
NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY</font><div><font
face="'courier new', monospace">BROWN UNIVERSITY :: PROVIDENCE, R.I.
02912 :: 401-863-1187</font></div><div><span
style="font-family:"courier new",monospace"><</span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU"
style="font-family:"courier new",monospace" target="_blank">Richard_Noble@Br</a><span
style="font-family:"courier new",monospace"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://own.edu" target="_blank">own.edu</a></span><span
style="font-family:"courier new",monospace">></span></div></div></div>
</div></blockquote><br></div></body></html>