<html>
Manon has done a superb job in her position paper on Machine Press
Cataloging. I do have a few comments/questions. There is one
problem--I cannot copy and paste text from the Adobe Acrobat
document.<br><br>
1. On p. 2, half way through:<br><br>
whether or not the current instruction to treat printers and publishers
as interchangeable in the imprint area is to be observed for bothearly
and modern materials ...<br><br>
The following is from ISBD(A). Do we want to consider this?
In many ways it does make sense. I think this would have to be done
for all publications and not just after a certain date.<br><br>
<b>4.5 Place of printing<br>
</b>&<br>
<b>4.6 Name of printer</b> <br>
4.5.1 The place of printing and the name of the printer are given
following the date, & 4.6.1 when they appear in the publication, but
not in the first preferred prescribed source of information for the place
of publication, etc., or name of publisher, etc., elements, or when they
do not appear in the publication and are known and considered important
by the bibliographic agency. <br>
4.5.2 The place(s) of printing and the name(s) of printer(s) are given in
the same way & 4.6.2 as the principal place(s) of publication, etc.,
and name of publisher, etc. <br>
e.g. <br>
A Paris : chez Nyon l'aîné, 1781 ([Paris] : de l'imprimerie de la veuve
Thiboust)<br>
<i>Note:</i> Printer named in colophon <br>
Francofurti : prostat apud Ionam Rosarn, 1616 ([Frankfurt : Abraham
Scultetus])<br>
<i>Editorial comment:</i> Printer not named in the publication <br>
[Parrhisiis] : venales inveniuntur in vico sancti Iacobi apud Leonem
Argenteum [Johannem Petit], 1508 (Parrhisiis : impressae in Bellovisu
[apud] Johannem Marchant)<br>
<i>Note:</i> Petit's name, the place, date and the statement of printing
are taken from the colophon <br>
Venundatur Parrhisiis : in vico sancti Iacobi sub Leone Argenteo, Jehan
Petit, [ca. 1509] ([Paris : Jean Marchant])<br>
<i>Note:</i> The last leaf bears the device of the printer.<br>
Petit's name appears in a device on the title-page<br><br>
--------------------<br><br>
2. Multiple edition statements<br><br>
If we give all printing statements in the 250, what do we do about the
"historical" type of printing statements that often
appear?<br><br>
Example 1 (Made up)<br>
First published in London by Faber and Faber in 1932<br>
First American edition<br>
First printing 1933; second printing July 1934; third printing December
1934<br><br>
Would we give both the "First American edition" and the
"third printing December 1934" in the 250 and then give other
information in a note? Would it be better to give the edition
statement in the 250 and the printing information in a note?<br><br>
------------------------<br><br>
3. In general, where Manon has used the phrase "if
desired", would it be better to give a rule, to either do or don't
do, but give the other as an option.<br><br>
Example:<br>
"Do not transcribe pre 1870 copyright dates. Optionally, add
this information in a note."<br><br>
Jane<br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
Jane Gillis | Rare Book Cataloger| Sterling Memorial Library<br>
Yale University | New Haven CT 06520<br>
(203)432-8383 (voice) | (203)432-7231 (fax) | jane.gillis@yale.edu<br>
</html>