ACRL RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee Rare Books and Manuscripts Section

DPC: Mandatory note on supplied date inconsistency

  • 1.  DPC: Mandatory note on supplied date inconsistency

    Posted Dec 03, 2010 05:59 PM

    This topic was posted to DCRM-L on November 28, 2010 under the subject line "DPC: Mandatory note on supplied date inconsistency"

    1. Proposed changes to "If the date of copyright or deposit does not represent the probable date..." [DCRM(B) 4D6.3 and DCRM(S) 4D5.3]:

    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, 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."

    2. Proposed change to "Patterns for supplying a conjectural date" [DCRM(B) 4D5]:

    Give any needed explanation Indicate the basis for the conjecture in a note"

    For the start of the discussion thread, see the DCRM-L archives: https://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/2010-November/thread.htm...

    BSC members will vote on Tuesday, December 7. Please use DCRM-L for any further discussion.

    Thanks,

       Erin Blake
       Chair of DCRM(G) Editorial Team



  • 2.  RE: DPC: Mandatory note on supplied date inconsistency

    Posted Feb 17, 2011 08:43 AM

    The change was approved by BSC and added to the DCRM Editorial Guidelines page at http://wikis.ala.org/acrl/index.php/DCRM_Editorial_Guidelines.