<html>
<br>
I'm going to pull out one paragraph of Larry's response for
comment. It hit me immediately, and is also a significant issue
that the DCRB revision must face.<br><br>
By way of preface, one of the issues that we have to deal with is
granularity of description: what do we call the various aggregates
of individual copies that we need to deal with, and how do we decide
which aggregates to describe. At this time, we are caught between
two different terminological shemas. On the one hand, we have the
traditional bibliographic terms: edition, issue, impression, state.
On the other hand, we have the more formal data model contained in the
<i>Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records</i>. Unfortunately,
it is not exactly clear how these two conceptual schemas overlay each
other. That's the point that Larry is addressing below and on which
I believe the DCRB revision process needs to come to some
conclusions.<br><br>
At 10:46 AM 12/6/2002, Laurence Creider wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>While John is correct to say that a
different manifestation means a<br>
different expression when there are changes, the FRBR report does say
that<br>
a different manifestation may mean a different expression, but not
always.<br>
Octavo, quarto, duodecimo, and London and Dublin 18th century editions
of<br>
the Spectator are different manifestations but not different
expressions.<br>
On the other hand, the Spectator and the essays from the Spectator
are<br>
different expressions, as are groups of the essays by the
individual<br>
authors. The FRBR report does say that the manifestation and
item<br>
entities can be used to describe subgroups, but the writers do not
expand<br>
on this. We need some terminology for the classes between
manifestation<br>
and items, such as states and issues. Sometimes we need to or feel
the<br>
need to make bibliographic records to represent individual states
and<br>
issues, sometimes even (as in the case of the Folger's First Folios
or<br>
some incunables), we need to create separate records for individual
items.<br>
These obviously fit into the category of serving the user function
of<br>
identification, but perhaps we need to propose that the categories
of<br>
manifestation and item need fuller amplication in the FRBR model.
Of<br>
course, these issues may also fit in with Group 6's
mission.</blockquote><br>
I agree with Larry's first point. A manifestation that contains
changes in content (as opposed to simple changes in form) would be a new
expression, but a manifestation which was an unchanged reprint of a
previous manifestation would not.<br><br>
I'm not sure, however, that I agree with his application of this
principle to differences in bibliographic format. Unless my
knowledge of descriptive bibliography is seriously deficient, I believe
that octavo, quarto and duodecimo manifestations BY DEFINITION must
involve distinct settings of type. To my mind, this means that it
is almost impossible that the resetting does not involve changes of
content -- those changes may be of varying significance, but there are
differences.<br><br>
In terms of cataloging rules for hand-printed books, we need to decide
whether "change of content" in the FRBR use of the term means
only significant and/or intentional changes, or whether -- in the special
case of hand-printed books -- any resetting of type is by definition a
new expression. I don't think it would be difficult to make a case
for the latter; it is certainly the basis of the definition of
"edition" in the current DCRB (based on a definition by
Tanselle). Personally, I find this to be more in keeping with
traditional bibliographic treatment of hand-printed books. On the
other hand, it would be possible to justify the former interpretation on
the grounds of similarity to how we handle machine-printed
books.<br><br>
Group Six, I understand, will be looking at questions of edition, issue
and impression -- and basically when to make a new record. Although
we don't have to map our decisions to FRBR terminology, it might be
helpful to use FRBR terms to describe what we are doing. We
definitely have to be clear about when to make a new record; as Larry
notes, there may not be a single answer -- I'm thinking of a default
position, with guidelines to help the cataloger decide when a more
detailed treatment (describing variant states of an edition, for example)
might be appropriate. <br><br>
There is a lot more to say about this, but I'll stop here.<br><br>
Further comments welcome.<br><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>John
Attig<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Cataloging
Services<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Penn State
University Libraries<br><br>
</html>