<font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif">The RDA rule over-ruled in the Policy Statement is rather an absurd one, and presumes that the cataloguing agency is a large one, with numerous employees well enough versed in various languages to advise the uncertain cataloguer. There is, of course, an inherent conflict in this use of the 250 field, which is normally based on transcription from the item, when the contents are supplied as editorial invention. So now, per policy, we compromise by making the bracketed statement look like a transcription--that is, we fake it. (This is complicated by the fact that in many languages there is no unambiguous terminology that can be applied, in cataloguing books, to the edition/issue/impression taxonomy, without further qualification and explanation. What is an "edicion"?)</font></font><div>
<font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif"><br></font></font></div><div><font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif">Notes are less restricted, and a note in the language of the agency is necessary to back up the 250. As has been frequently noted concerning this topic, the invalidation of the 503 field has made it impossible to isolate a search for edition-related terms to a specific field, whether manually or by way of de-duping protocols.</font></font></div>
<div><font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif"><br></font></font></div><div><font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif">While it is not an immediate solution (cheating is, and I'm glad you've done it, however inadvertently), I do think that the definition of a new, distinct tag (e.g. 251) for a cataloguer-supplied edition statement in the language of the agency, would be a useful addition, very much on the order of the 246 "other title", which can be anything from any source that the cataloguer thinks will be useful (perhaps not even requiring the 250 as well). If a statement is desperately wanted in the language of the piece, let it be supplied by way of a parallel record created by an agency that writes its records in that language. Some sort of generic, Esperanto-like set of abbreviations would be useful, but I dare say that now meets a solid RDA roadblock, they being not immediately understanded of the people</font></font></div>
<div><font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif"><br></font></font></div><div><font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif">This is not a trivial matter, if we want to take FRBR at all seriously: we are talking about the identification/disambiguation of manifestations. Or does this really not matter, in the end? Do we just make a fudge of more or less similar manifestations? I.e., if it doesn't matter to those who don't understand the actual distinctions, whether or not expressed by way of abbreviation, then does it not matter at all?</font></font></div>
<div><font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif"><br></font></font></div><div><font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif">FRBR looks to the creation of a bibliographical database, not just a catalogue, but real bibliographies cannot be constructed with the kinds of restrictions that we meet with in rules primarily directed to the purpose of homogenizing master records for use in unmediated copy-cataloguing.</font></font></div>
<div><font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif"><br clear="all"></font></font><font face="'courier new', monospace">RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY<br>PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-3384 : <a href="mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU" target="_blank">RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU</a> </font><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Schupbach, William <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:w.schupbach@wellcome.ac.uk">w.schupbach@wellcome.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
"The RDA Library of Congress Policy Statement 2.5.1.4 is an almost exact<br>
restatement of AACR2 1.2B4, providing for a cataloger-supplied edition<br>
statement: ?LCPS for <a href="http://2.5.1.4" target="_blank">2.5.1.4</a>: Recording Edition Statements: If a<br>
resource lacks an edition statement but it is known to contain<br>
significant changes from other editions, supply a brief statement in the<br>
language and script of the title proper and enclose it in square<br>
brackets.? LC Policy Statements (LCPSs) are the RDA parallels to AACR2<br>
LC Rule Interpretations (LCRIs)." (Jay Weitz)<br>
<br>
I had not noticed this before, but it means that, in most of the cases I<br>
deal with, I should have been writing those bracketed 250s in Latin. Has<br>
everybody else been doing this?<br>
<br>
William Schupbach<br>
Wellcome Library, 183 Euston Road, London NW1 2BE<br>
E-mail: <a href="mailto:w.schupbach@wellcome.ac.uk">w.schupbach@wellcome.ac.uk</a><br>
<br>
Visit the Wellcome Library Blog at: <a href="http://wellcomelibrary.blogspot.com" target="_blank">http://wellcomelibrary.blogspot.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
********<br>
<br>
<br>
This message has been scanned for viruses by Websense Hosted Email Security - <a href="http://www.websense.com" target="_blank">www.websense.com</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>