<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;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</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=WordSection1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Why don’t/can’t the same rules apply to the 250 as
apply to the 260. In the 260, we supply any information, not in the piece
but known, in brackets and in the language of the cataloging agency. This
is not a question of the rules, but of the principles. If rules/interpretations
in the past have gotten this wrong, why can’t we correct this now?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Jane<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-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 style='margin-left:.5in'><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> Tuesday, November 16, 2010 10:10 AM<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 style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;
font-family:"Garamond","serif"'>I agree 100% with Deborah. In the final
analysis, the 250 is an important carrier of information regarding
identification and distinction of manifestations. Its content and its very
presence justify the creation of a separate record, which cannot be done
reliably at the 5XX level when the preceding levels are identical, or perhaps
only even nearly identical, given OCLC's wide tolerances in the matching
protocols for statements of extent--a case where descriptive ambiguity leads to
conflation.* </span><span class=apple-style-span><span style='font-size:
18.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif"'>At base, the greater precision of
transcription and physical description in the dcrm's is to support the identification
of entities and provide evidence to account for their relationships. What we're
talking about is the very basic problem of making evidence evident, and
incorporating it into the database in such a way that the relationships are
properly embodied in the structure of the records.</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span class=apple-style-span><span
style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif"'>*Yes, I know that
absence of an edition statement does not in itself justify creation of a new
OCLC record, all other things being equal. But "all other things" may
amount to very little indeed.</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:
12.0pt;margin-left:.5in'><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 style='margin-left:.5in'>On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 5:49 PM,
Deborah J. Leslie <<a href="mailto:DJLeslie@folger.edu">DJLeslie@folger.edu</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";
color:#1F497D'>We had just such a situation today, with 1903
"ordinary" and "fine paper" issues of <i>As you like it</i>.
I put quotes around "ordinary" because it is in fact a beautiful
volume with t.p. in red, thick, untrimmed paper, and large margins and font.
The "fine paper" issue, however, is not on paper at all, but on
"Imperial Japan vellum" and has hand-colored illustration and
decorations. The two issues are the same size and setting of type. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";
color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";
color:#1F497D'>Our solution: supply an edition statement to record for the fine
copy: [Imperial Japan vellum issue] with a supporting note, and a reciprocal
note, but without a supplied edition statement, on the other. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";
color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";
color:#1F497D'>This was easy, because we were able to take verbiage from the
volume itself. One of the reasons I have been reluctant to embrace supplied
edition statements is not just that it's polluting the function of the 250, but
because of the difficulty of coming up with clear, succinct, and accurate
edition statements without help from the resource or from bibliographers. A
solution for rare English books might be to supply the STC, Wing, or ESTC
number in brackets as an edition statement, in addition to its use in field
510. I'm having a harder time thinking about supplying edition statements
for non-English books. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";
color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";
color:#1F497D'>Can we, as a community, keep our minds and options open as we
contemplate how to accommodate RDA? That is, I hope we can keep the possibility
of supplying edition statements, square-bracketed, in English, on the table.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";
color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> <a href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu"
target="_blank">dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</a> [mailto:<a
href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu" target="_blank">dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Noble, Richard<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, 15 November, 2010 16:47</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><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></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif"'>The
difficulty with the supplied edition statement is that it has to be given in
the language of the item--essentially in the form of such an edition statement
as the original <i>might</i> have contained. I may be exaggerating the
difficulty of doing so; but in many cases any sort of conventional designation
wouldn't really make sense. On the other hand, I'm willing to be counselled
otherwise--that any sort of statement one can come up with will at least
suffice to prevent a merge, and then you can explain more fully in the note.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif"'>The
whole question arose for me in the context of concealed editions, which in many
cases can't be prioritized, so that you need to name the edition in an
unfamiliar tongue, not just number it; and there are languages in which the
cognates of "edition" and equivalents of "issue"have very
slippery meanings--often only designating an invariant impression that would
not require a separate record. Am I looking for the equivalent of serial
"complexity" notes? A "bibliographical relationship
complexity" note that nevertheless is tagged in such a way as to permit
automatic merge-blocking. The real problem is the burying of a fundamental
manifestation distinction in the data structure ("concealed editions"
means "concealed in the catalog") in practice; combined with the
difficulty of imitating an edition statement that doesn't exist.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt;
margin-left:.5in'><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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>