<html>
<body>
<font size=3>My first impulse was to create a separate record, rather
than modify the existing record by adding a note explaining that the
record actually represents two editions. I am, however, significantly
hampered by DCRM(B) 2B5.1: "If the publication does not contain an
edition statement, but is known to contain significant changes from other
editions, or an edition statement for it is provided by a reference
source, do not supply an edition statement based on this information.
Give the information in a note."<br><br>
I believe there was discussion of this a while ago, and I don't want to
go over old ground at length. Still, in the context of OCLC, the absence
of an edition statement guarantees that the editions will remain, for all
practical purposes, concealed; the records will simply be perceived as
variant dups. Notes are obscure, and invisible in brief record browses.
In this particular case, there are differences, which could be made
visible in the record: in the 300 field the 1st ed. ends with [2] p., the
errata leaf, the 2nd ed. lacks it; and the 1st ed. has a colophon,
lacking in the 2nd, that could be transcribed in 260 $e,f. But given the
inconsistency with which these elements are treated, the <i>absence</i>
of such information in a record is not a "positive negative".
The differences fall far short of the OCLC standard for "new"
records. Of course, presence or absence of an edition statement is
likewise insufficient grounds, so ... what? (Alas, we've lost the 503,
which could be treated in a system as a virtual 250.)<br><br>
For what it's worth, here's a point where accurate implementation of
FRBR, under which two editions constitute different manifestations, is
simply blocked by rule and system. FRBR is the bibliographical level of
cataloging; and in a bibliography, these two editions would be explicitly
differentiated at the <i>topmost</i> level by means of different entry
numbers and short titles. The closest analog in our catalogs where such a
distinction could be expressed is the edition area.<br><br>
In the taxonomy of our world, "edition" is a pretty fundamental
distinction; but it may be that such closely similar editions are not
regarded in the vast world outside ours as different enough to warrant
notice. This suggests that there's regular FRBR and rbsc FRBR.
Interesting from this perspective are the alternative rules in DCRM(B)
regarding treatment of impressions, binding variants, and the like.
"Concealed" editions are simply those not evidently different
at a certain level of analysis. In a "master record" system
such as OCLC, should we posit that the standard level does not purport to
distinguish all editions, even when research has unconcealed them? And
that a full survey of editions requires access to more deeply analytical
records associated with the master record, but residing in catalogs based
on different principles?<br><br>
I can still add a note to the existing master record, of course:
something of a surrogate/entity relationship complexity note. It's
complicated by the fact that, under full-dress dcrmb, the record for the
1st ed. would in fact differ slightly from the record for the 2nd. I
don't know quite how to say that in a 500 note...<br><br>
Sorry to go on about this, but for me it gets to the heart of what rbsc
catalogers are trying to accomplish with occasionally unfriendly
tools.<br><br>
</font><tt>RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY :
BROWN UNIVERSITY<br>
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-3384 :
RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU <br><br>
</tt><font size=3>At 5/3/2010 11:23 AM, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">This is a really difficult
question. Has OCLC agreed not to merge records with 040 dcrmb? If so,
Richard should create a new record and in the first note, describe the
visual distinctions between this edition and the other. The fact that the
other master record contains matches of mixed editions can't be Richard's
problem. <br>
<br>
On the other hand, I write from the perspective of someone who catalogs
in Connexion, and so choice of master record is made by a human. I don't
know about institutions that catalog locally and then batch-upload their
records; am I right in thinking that they can't control how their records
are matched?<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>Richard
Noble<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, 02 May, 2010 17:28<br>
<b>To:</b> DCRM Revision Group List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [DCRM-L] Concealed editions in OCLC - Shorter
question<br>
<br>
Sorry that I sent such a long and unnecessarily detailed question last
week--I was too bound up in the book. Here it is briefly and
generically:<br><br>
I find out that book in hand is actually a 2nd ed., a page for page
reprint, with minor variations in text and illustrations, of the 1st ed.
The two have previously been treated by all agencies and authorities as a
single edition. My library has only this copy, which I have compared with
the Google Books version of the 1st ed.<br><br>
The holdings attached to the principal OCLC master record for the book
naturally represent a mixture of editions. Individual records (seen via
IR or institutional online catalog) are in some cases detailed enough to
identify a copy as 1st or 2nd ed., though copy-cataloging may mean, in
many cases, that the description doesn't actually apply to the copy; in
other cases not enough evidence is reported in the record.<br><br>
What to do?<br><br>
Case in point: Edmé-Sébastien Jeaurat, <i>Traité de perspective à l'usage
des artistes</i> (1750) OCLC 13455452.<br><br>
Many thanks --<br><br>
</font><tt>RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY :
BROWN UNIVERSITY</tt><font size=3><br>
</font><tt>PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-3384 :
RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU </blockquote></body>
</html>