[DCRM-L] DPC: Mandatory note on supplied date inconsistency

[Erin Blake]

DCRM(B) 4D6.3 and DCRM(S) 4D5.3 say "If the date of copyright or deposit does not represent the probable date of publication, distribution, etc., note it nonetheless and supply a more accurate date of publication, distribution, etc., in square brackets. Provide an explanation for the supplied date, if possible" but there are two problems:
a) providing an explanation for a supplied date is mandatory according to 4D4, so "if possible" should be deleted
b) for clarity, the rule should begin "If a date of publication, distribution, etc., does not appear in the source and the date of copyright or deposit does not represent the probable date of publication..." (for that matter, should a wacky copyright date be noted "nonetheless" whether or not the publication date appears in the source?) 

Similarly, DCRM(B) 4D5 (Patterns for supplying a conjectural date) says "Give any needed explanation in a note" but again, explaining a conjectural date is mandatory per 4D4, so the phrase should either be omitted (because it's already stated above) or or "Indicate the basis for the conjecture in a note" should be repeated from 4D4 as a reminder.

Thanks,

  EB.

--------------------------------------------------
Erin C. Blake, Ph.D.  |  Curator of Art & Special Collections  |  Folger Shakespeare Library  |  201 E. Capitol St. SE  | Washington, DC 20003-1004  |  office tel. (202) 675-0323  |  fax:  (202) 675-0328  | eblake at folger.edu  |  www.folger.edu