<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2719.2200" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=000335019-07112002><FONT face=Georgia color=#000080>Oh no,
Richard, I'm not rolling my eyes in the least. I made that statement about
addresses, and then swallowed my inclination to give my preferences. I am
emboldened by your arguments, though, and will tip my hand a bit here. I
would like to see the rules give encouragement for recording addresses, drop the
provision that allows only the first publisher's name to be included while
omitting subsequent ones, and stop the silent omission of t.p. dedication and
privilege statements. And of course there's the silent roman to Arabic date
"adjustment" to be scrutinized. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=000335019-07112002><FONT face=Georgia
color=#000080></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=000335019-07112002><FONT face=Georgia color=#000080>Since this
revision is going to be guided with a firm and (I think) thorough statement of
explicit general principles, all of these proposals for change (or retention)
will need to be made with reference to them. The general principles document is
in preparation, but I would like to encourage everyone to read
IFLA's _Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records_. It's technical
and not rare-material oriented, but I think we will be able profitably
to use the concepts and relationships of entities and user tasks to
get a firmer grip on why we do what we do. All 144 pages can be found at:
<A
href="http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf">http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf</A></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=000335019-07112002><FONT face=Georgia
color=#000080></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=000335019-07112002><FONT face=Georgia
color=#000080></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=000335019-07112002><FONT face=Georgia color=#000080>Of course,
one thing to keep in mind is that the clamor of the ARL [Association of
Research Libraries] library directors for more streamlined and
easier-to-follow rules can't be ignored. It doesn't need to be an either-or, at
least in this early stage of thinking. If we're thoughtful and careful about
this, we can navigate between the rocks and the whirlpool.
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=000335019-07112002><FONT face=Georgia
color=#000080></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=000335019-07112002>
<P><FONT face="Baskerville Win95BT" color=#000000
size=2>___________________________</FONT> <BR><FONT face="Baskerville Win95BT"
color=#000000 size=2>Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. </FONT><BR><FONT
face="Calisto MT" color=#000000 size=2>Head of Cataloging</FONT> <BR><FONT
face="Calisto MT" color=#000000 size=2>Folger Shakespeare Library</FONT>
<BR><FONT face="Calisto MT" color=#000000 size=2>201 East Capitol St.,
S.E.</FONT> <BR><FONT face="Calisto MT" color=#000000 size=2>Washington, D.C.
20003</FONT> <BR><FONT face="Calisto MT" color=#000000 size=2>202.675-0369
(p)</FONT> <BR><FONT face="Calisto MT" color=#000000 size=2>202.675-0328
(f)</FONT> <BR><FONT face="Calisto MT" color=#000000
size=2>djleslie@folger.edu</FONT> <BR><FONT face="Calisto MT" color=#000000
size=2>www.folger.edu</FONT> </P></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Richard Noble
[mailto:Richard_Noble@brown.edu]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, November 07, 2002
1:57 PM<BR><B>To:</B> dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [DCRB-L] RE:
Names of publishers<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT size=3>Deborah's accustomed to
my somewhat non-orthodox thinking, so she'll just roll her eyes at the
following screed:<BR><BR>In the course of a recent non-library cataloguing
project, I rejoiced several times that the Bodleian cataloguers had elected to
transcribe imprints in full, including addresses--and there they were in the
"WorldCat". Addresses change over time, and can provide invaluable evidence
for dating undated materials. As records that include them accumulate in a
database, we find ourselves with a historical resource that Plomer couldn't
even have dreamed of. The same applies in the case of transcribing all names
in a conger, rather than the supremely frustrating "[and 5 others]". It also
applies to the wording of imprints, in itself a matter of considerable
interest; the more we accumulate, the more we know, and the time to do the
accumulating is when we have the items in hand. We are at that moment in a
privileged position to contribute importantly to historical bibliography.
Frankly, as a bibliographically inclined cataloguer, I've never understood how
imprints differ from titles enough to justify the omission of this
information. I find it intellectually incoherent.<BR><BR>The whole purpose of
DCRM is to address the very different approach that we take to the marks on
the page as historical artifact and historical evidence. It is different
enough to have encountered resistance when the rules were first being
devised--at a time when we were still mostly producing card sets, before it
was clear how much more powerful and flexible our new forms of data storage
and management could be. The resulting compromises are mostly unfortunate. I
am much more interested in the spirit of DCRM than I am in the spirit of AACR,
which properly serves different purposes in a different context. My hope for
the BSC has always been that it could represent <I>and advance</I> the
interests of bibliographical scholarship, to the extent that the catalogue--in
the widest sense--is itself a scholarly bibliographical resource. We can do so
by at least maximizing a certain permissiveness in the treatment of "other"
information.<BR><BR>(Peter Blayney has recently remarked rather savagely on
the omission of privilege statements in imprints--it is not a trivial matter.
Another scholar, John Buchtel, recently lamented, on exlibris, the omission of
dedicatees. One might also mention sermon texts, which are supremely relevant
title information. I've also rejoiced when cataloguers include all the
honorifics, degrees, positions, and encomia attached to authors' names in
statements of responsibility: the bibliographic database can be one of our
most comprehensive resources for authority work, after all, and that purpose
is not well served by the cataloguer mania for knowing just what information
to suppress.) <BR><BR>Of course, anyone who followed the recent autocat thread
on the death of MARC and especially the introduction of databases like XOBIS
will suspect that this is merely a death rattle.<BR><BR>
<P>RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN
UNIVERSITY<BR>PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-2093 :
RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU</FONT> </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>