<font size="4"><font face="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.* </font></font><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: garamond, serif; font-size: large; ">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><div>
<font class="Apple-style-span" face="garamond, serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="garamond, serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">*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.<br>
</span></font><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="garamond, serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br></span></font><div><div><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 5:49 PM, Deborah J. Leslie <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:DJLeslie@folger.edu">DJLeslie@folger.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";color:#1F497D"> </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">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></p><div class="im"><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</div><p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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></p><div class="im">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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></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>
</p>
</div>
</div></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div>