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

[Manon Theroux]

DCRM(B) 4D6.3 and DCRM(S) 4D5.3 :
--I'd be okay with revising the rule to delete "if possible" and
rewording to begin with "If a date of publication ..."
--Re the question "should a wacky copyright date be noted
"nonetheless" whether or not the publication date appears in the
source?" I think this situation is adequately covered by 4D6.4 which
gives the cataloger leeway to note the copyright date; I don't think
it should be mandatory (and would hate to have to clarify what to
consider "wacky").

DCRM(B) 4D5: I'd be okay with deleting "Give any needed explanation in
a note" or rewording based on 4D4 language, though I don't find the
current sentence particularly egregious (again it's simply a
carry-over from DCRB).

Finally, although it isn't being proposed, I'd also be fine with NOT
doing the above and instead revising 4D4 to make the note NOT
mandatory. Something like: "Indicate the basis for the conjecture in a
note if possible." There have certainly been times when I've had to
supply a probable century date or an uncertain span based on an item's
overall look and feel, or its general vocabulary and turns of phrase,
but would have trouble coming up with a good note to that effect.

-Manon

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Erin Blake <EBlake at folger.edu> wrote:
> 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.

--
Manon Theroux
Head of Technical Services
U.S. Senate Library