<html>
<body>
I agree with Marcia's team that the footnote and the phrase at 4A6
indicate that later books would require [Sl. : s.n., date] ‡e
(<place> : ‡f <manufacturer>, <date>) when the
publisher is unknown. This is also AACR2:<br><br>
1.4G1. <br>
<a name="Aacr2UNDERSCORE711"></a>If the name of the publisher is unknown
and the place and name of the manufacturer are found in the
<a href="http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=folioinfobase%7CAacr2&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7CItemSLASHglossary&s_type=phrase&hash=ItemSLASHglossary">
item</a><a name="Aacr2UNDERSCORE711"></a>, give the place and name of the
manufacturer. <br>
<a name="Aacr2UNDERSCORE712"></a>[S.l. :
s.n<a name="Aacr2UNDERSCORE712"></a>.], 1970 (London : High Fidelity
Sound Studios) <br>
<br>
I believe that we did discuss this way back when, and in DCRMS have an
example at 4F that sort of gets to this:<br><br>
Boston : [s.n., 1842-1873] (Boston : Tuttle & Dennett)
<br><br>
Annie<br><br>
At 04:14 PM 4/27/2010, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Thanks for your careful
consideration of these issues, Marcia.<br>
<br>
Please note that none of the rules relating to any of the areas are to be
restricted to hand-press or machine-press only, and area 4 encompasses
the largest set of augmentations in order to explicitly include
machine-press books. (Except for area 6, which didn't exist in DCRB).
<br>
<br>
The rules in question are 4A6.2.1-2. Since you are talking about
situations where there are statements relating only to manufacture, that
statement is to be transcribed in the place, name, and date of
publishing, distribution, etc. The only exception to that is for the kind
of situation you're invoking below, for when there is a manufacture
statement only, but the manufacturer is known not to be the publisher. If
the publisher is known or can be reasonably surmised, supply that
information in the place, name, and date of publishing, etc., and put the
manufacture in the place, name, and date of manufacture. <br>
<br>
I see no provision at all for [Sl. : s.n., date] ‡e (<place> : ‡f
<manufacturer>, <date>). <br>
<br>
Would some of the other B editors and those involved in the revision of
DCRB please give your readings of this situation vis-à-vis the
rules?<br>
<b>From:</b> Barrett, Marcia
[<a href="mailto:mbarrett@ua.edu" eudora="autourl">
mailto:mbarrett@ua.edu</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, 27 April, 2010 16:02<br>
<b>To:</b> DCRM Revision Group List; BIBCObox@loc.gov; Deborah J.
Leslie<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: BSR/Rare Books<br>
<br>
On behalf of the group that worked on the draft BSR for Rare Books, I’d
like to respond to the points Deborah has raised. The Task Group
has taken some time to consider this, particularly the issues associated
with area four. This raises questions about how to interpret the
instructions for area four and points to an important discussion for the
DCRM community.<br>
<br>
DCRM(B) rule 4A6 and its explanatory footnote clearly separate the issues
of how the roles of publisher v. manufacturer were different in the hand
press period than they were in the 19<sup>th</sup> century and
beyond. We believe the intention here is to allow for accurate
transcription of all permutations found in publisher/manufacturing
statements. Deborah’s statements are true for books of the
hand-press era. The text prepared for the 260 portion of the BSR
for Rare Books took into account that the majority of situations would
fall into the possibility of recording either publisher or printer in
$a-b.<br>
<br>
However, our understanding of rule 4A6 and its explanatory footnote is a
broad interpretation that allows for the possibility of an instance where
“[S.l. : s.n.] ; <date> $e (<place> : $f <printer>)”
could exist. The scope of the BSR for Rare Books does not exclude
books printed after 1800. It is these later materials, where only
information related to printing is found on the item and publication
information is unknown, that call for such an allowance. As an
example, a 19<sup>th</sup> century or later book may have no publisher
statement and very small printed text in the colophon giving the name and
location of the stereotyping or collotyping. This constitutes an
absence of true publication information, and we believe that rule 4A6 and
its footnote agree with the rationale for recording this information in
the $e-f in this instance.<br>
<br>
With regard to the two notes in question for the BSR for Rare Books, the
MAP was modeled on the Books BSR. The Task Group agrees that it
would be appropriate to drop the 505 note from the MAP and to add a note
(Mandatory if Applicable) for transposition of transcribed text.<br>
<br>
Marcia<br>
<br>
Marcia Barrett<br>
Special Collections Cataloger<br>
University Libraries<br>
The University of Alabama<br>
Box 870266<br>
Tuscaloosa AL 35487-0266<br>
205-348-6390<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu
[<a href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu" eudora="autourl">
mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Deborah J.
Leslie<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 22, 2010 2:04 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> BIBCObox@loc.gov<br>
<b>Cc:</b> DCRM Revision Group List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [DCRM-L] BSR/Rare Books<br>
<br>
Carolyn and colleagues,<br>
<br>
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the BSR drafts. I've read
over the BSR for Rare Books and think it is a fine document, with only a
couple of places that still need refinement. (With contrite apologies to
my RBMS colleagues for not catching these while the BSR draft was still
in the drafting stage.) <br>
<br>
<b>Field 260</b> ‡e‡f‡g, reads: <br>
<br>
Lacking substantive information for ‡a and/or ‡b, supply useful
information in manufacturer subfields.<br>
<br>
This instruction to supply helpful information in subfields ‡e‡f‡g
violates the rules for area 4. See especially 4A6, which elaborates (in
great detail!) the relationships between publication/distribution and
manufacture in the hand-press era and how to treat them. The only time
260 ‡e‡f‡g may be used is when an item 1) bears both a publisher,
distributor, etc., statement and a manufacturer statement, 2) the
publisher is emphasized over the manufacturer, and 3) the two statements
are grammatically separable. (4A6.3.2.2) If an item does not bear
substantive information, the cataloger uses subfields ‡a‡b‡c to supply
whatever information can be had. I recommend dropping these three
subfields entirely from the BSR for Rare Books. <br>
<br>
<b>505</b> Formatted contents note. DCRM(B) 1D2.3 makes it clear that
transcribing formal contents is optional. Is it appropriate for an
optional note in the rules be elevated to a Mandatory if Applicable note
in the BSR?<br>
<br>
<b>5xx </b>The text in the MAP makes it apparent that all notes required
in DCRM(B) are also Mandatory if Applicable to the BSR. One 500 note, on
the source of the title proper, is given in the list. There is another
type of required note that I believe to be as important as the source of
the title proper and a lot more common: any transposition of transcribed
text is to be noted. (1B1.2 etc.) I recommend adding this note to the
MAP.<br>
__________________________ <br>
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. <br>
RBMS Chair 2009-2010 | Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare Library
<br>
201 East Capitol St., S.E. | Washington, D.C. 20003 | 202.675-0369 <br>
djleslie@folger.edu |
<a href="http://www.folger.edu/">http://www.folger.edu</a> <br>
</blockquote></body>
</html>