<html>
Let me begin by apologizing for taking so long to comment on what we all
agree is a superb document by Manon. Despite my gray hairs, I am
still relatively new to this, and I admit I felt hesitant to comment at
all, at least until all the heavy hitters had had time to weigh in.
Then too, Manon's draft is so strong that even through several readings,
it seemed as if nearly all that was left to do was the hashing out, in a
live give-and-take conference setting, of the questions and issues she
identified so insightfully.<br>
<br>
That said, Manon's plea for public comment from attendees has come
through loud and clear. I only hope that most of what follows isn't
so painfully obvious to everyone that CPUs are sent crashing to the floor
in offices everywhere.<br>
<br>
<b>0D. Prescribed sources of information<br>
<br>
</b><u>Recommendation:<br>
<br>
</u>Insert text in the penultimate paragraph:
<dl><i>
<dd>In all cases in which data for the first three areas, <b>or the
series area,</b> are taken from elsewhere than the title page,<b>
</b>make a note to indicate the source of the data.<b> </i></b>
</dl>------> This is very tricky, as others have pointed out.
But for a couple of reasons, I'd prefer not to deviate from AACR2 on this
one. <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Unfortunately
this issue, like many others the machine-press group must confront,
is balled up with the entire question of the intrinsic differences (if
any) between hand press and machine press books themselves, and whether
certain important characteristics of HP books, which so fundamentally
informed the creation of DCRB, are shared absolutely by MP books.
It is worth restating in this regard that DCRB says, in essence, nothing
at all about series, precisely because of its explicit, and in this
instance exclusive, concern with "early printed monographs"
(DCRB, p. 53, "6. Series area.")<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>If
monographic series are indeed more characteristic of books from 19c on
(and my experience with 17-19c sci-tech collections tells me they
definitely are), then there may be a few reasons to treat this very
specific aspect of MP books as the DCRM "exception" it
is. Why try to shoehorn an almost exclusively post-1800
characteristic into a pre-1800 schema? We have obvious reasons to
rely on the authority of the title page for most areas of the
description. But it seems to me that the emergence of the
monographic series was accompanied, if not announced, by the emergence of
the series title page. There were few-to-no series title pages in
the HP period, not because the practice was to publish series without
series title pages, but because the practice was not to publish series at
all. Although series could in theory have become ubiquitous before
the MP period, the fact is that they did not. But this isn't even
about what type of press they were printed on: it's about content, and
the presentation of information relating to that content. <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>So do we
want to insist that publications that characteristically identify
themselves in a very particular way -- via a series title page -- must be
described according to rules that ignore that characteristic? What
we are aiming for, of course, throughout DCRM is consistency. But
as strange as it may seem to us to read "Series statement from title
page," I think it is less strange than "Series statement from
series title page." And presumably, if we used the series t.p.
as our prescribed source, we'd end up making fewer notes altogether, if
series title pages are as common as I think they are. <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>I wouldn't
worry too much about user confusion: users of a typical university
catalog may note that DCRM records are different in some ways from other
records, but they are consistently so. Notes about sources of
information, for example, are common. For users of special, more
DCRM-intensive catalogs, well, presumably they see relatively few records
for MP materials as it is, and the introduction of records with a
consistent quirk -- occasionally citing the t.p. as series source --
shouldn't jar too much. We may need to educate such (already
engaged) users, who are apparently paying very close attention to our
records, but that seems do-able; and there are some changes coming to
their catalogs in any case, whether they like it or not, elsewhere in
these rules. <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>An
important thing to remember in this instance is that we are not talking
about changing an existing rule: DCRB has failed to provide rules
for series heretofore. What we are doing is introducing a new set
of rules into DCRM, and I think there are strong arguments for taking the
opportunity to bring this area of the description into alignment with
most of the materials it will be used to describe.<br>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<br>
<b>4. Publication, Etc., Area<br>
<br>
</b>------> There's lots here to chew on, and again, some in-person
tussles will be best for resolving the questions Manon identifies.
I do agree with Richard Noble's comments on 260 subfields e, f, and g,
and on prominence (typography, position, etc.) guiding us in their
use. We will likely end up with a more complicated document, but it
seems necessary and worth it. A c17 text with a printer and 6
booksellers listed on its title page seems to me to be saying something
very different from a c19 text with a large commercial publisher named on
the t.p., and a stereotyper noted in miniscule type on the t.p. verso.
<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>In any
case, DCRB is currently pretty bipolar on this: When "4E. Date of
impression" appears at the end of the chapter, it seems to come out
of left field.<br>
------> Thank you Manon for 4A2 and especially 4A3, and I second the
suggestion that the name of 4A3 be changed to "Form and order of
elements."<br>
------> 4D2 footnote: As it stands, DCRB instructs the cataloger
to consider dates in their relation to the enactment of uniform copyright
legislation worldwide, and then drops the subject. While the
cataloging rules cannot be all things to all people, additional
information on such dates, and the rationale behind them, would indeed be
welcome.<br>
<br>
<b>4E. Date of impression<br>
<br>
</b><x-tab> </x-tab>...
[Second] <u>Recommendation:<br>
<br>
</u>Revise text in final sentence:
<dl><i>
<dd>In the above cases, the source of the date of impression and any
explanations <s>may</s> <b>should</b> be given in the note area<s> if
useful</s>.</i>
</dl>------> I'd suggest an addition to Manon's changed text, as
follows:<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>In the
above cases, the source of the date of impression <b><i>(if other than
the title page),</i></b> and any explanations, should be given in the
note area.<br>
<br>
<b>6. Series area<br>
</b> <br>
<u>Recommendation:</u> ...<br>
<br>
6.A2. Sources of information ...<br>
<br>
[4th paragraph]:<br>
<b><i>Do not consider a cover to be a prescribed source unless it is
forms part of a publisher’s binding or wrapper. <br>
</i></b>------> May I suggest a change to: Do not consider a cover to
be a prescribed source unless it is <b><i>known to be</i></b> part of a
publisher's binding or wrapper.<br>
<br>
<b><i>6F. Series numbering<br>
<br>
</i></b>------> Manon is right on the money regarding transcription of
numbering. The question of ISSNs brings us back to questions about
the "source of information," to say nothing of
transposition. AACR2 is obviously riddled with problems here.
I think we should seriously question the way AACR2 packs area 6, and
consider unpacking it. <br>
<br>
Stephen<br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times">| Stephen Skuce |
Rare Books Cataloging Librarian <br>
| MIT Libraries | Building 14E-210B |
617.253.0654 | skuce@mit.edu</font></html>