<font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif">The problem isn't consistent language, but language which can be unambiguously associated with a specific data tag. This is virtually impossible in a wide-open free-text field. There may be lots of retrieval, but very little precision. Once again, I see this as a technical problem given precedence over a substantive one: tail wags dog. The rules are the tail; the book, whatever it is, as far as I <i>can tell</i> people, is the dog. Why make the rules self-defeating??</font></font><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 Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:01 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;">
Actually, this is the second reason I'm so opposed to supplying edition statements, which is only slightly less distressing than stretching the 250's purpose. I don't think we *can* come up with consistent phraseology; aside from my suggestion for English books using the STC, Wing, or ESTC number, it will have to be language taken either from the item itself (unlikely) or a note (e.g., [Large paper issue]), and strictly case-by-case.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu">dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu">dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</a>] On Behalf Of Laurence Creider<br>
Sent: Wednesday, 17 November, 2010 17:44<br>
To: Lenore Rouse<br>
Cc: DCRM Revision Group List<br>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] RDA Follow-up to "Cataloging Defensively" Webinar re edition statements<br>
<br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">Lenore raises some good points. I've also got a concern with supplying<br>
edition statements that does not seem to have bothered anyone else, but<br>
FWIW ....<br>
<br>
The lack of controlled vocabulary for supplied edition statements, not<br>
just in terms of source and language of the supplied statement, but more<br>
crucially in the choice of terms to identify the concealed edition seems<br>
to lay the way open for the creation of multiple bibliographic "ghosts" as<br>
well as duplicate records in OCLC.<br>
<br>
What we are talking about is making a major rule change or even a MARC<br>
format change to accommodate the limitations of a system, admittedly a<br>
huge system. I don't think that is ever a good idea because the system<br>
will eventually change or be replaced. A more justifiable solution is the<br>
use of a note in the bibliographic description, even though that poses<br>
problems for those of us (including my library) that do not have<br>
institutional records and will not.<br>
<br>
If the DCRM community does decide to go with the supplied edition<br>
statement, I think we need to spend time trying to come up with consistent<br>
phraseology that both librarians and patrons will understand and apply as<br>
consistently as possible.<br>
<br>
Larry<br>
<br>
Laurence S. Creider<br>
Special Collections Librarian<br>
New Mexico State University<br>
Las Cruces, NM 88003<br>
Work: 575-646-7227<br>
Fax: 575-646-7477<br>
<a href="mailto:lcreider@lib.nmsu.edu">lcreider@lib.nmsu.edu</a><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>