<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Palatino Linotype";
panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 5 5 3 3 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Garamond;
panose-1:2 2 4 4 3 3 1 1 8 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";
color:#1F497D;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";
color:#1F497D'>Richard's got it right. A distinct MARC tag will allow, not only
easy disambiguation of similar manifestations, but more precise display options,
such as square brackets for those who might want to preserve the distinction
between transcribed and supplied text. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Noble,
Richard<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, 15 November, 2010 10:12<br>
<b>To:</b> DCRM Revision Group List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [DCRM-L] RDA Follow-up to "Cataloging
Defensively" Webinar re edition statements<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"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"?)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"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</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"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?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;
font-family:"Garamond","serif"'><br clear=all>
</span><span style='font-family:"Courier New"'>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>
</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Schupbach, William <<a
href="mailto:w.schupbach@wellcome.ac.uk">w.schupbach@wellcome.ac.uk</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>"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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>