<font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif">For what it's worth, an elaborate single-record counter-example is available as</font></font><div><font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif"><br></font></font></div><div><font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif"><a href="http://josiah.brown.edu/record=b2229625">http://josiah.brown.edu/record=b2229625</a></font></font></div>
<div><font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif"><br></font></font></div><div><font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif">This corresponds to OCLC 31081012, a severely truncated version of a record that began life on RLIN as a revision and expansion of a Cornell record. Something's been done to it subsequently--the signatures note for the 8vo (Brown has both) is gone, and the record seems to have been re-founded on the LC record, per the 040.</font></font></div>
<div><font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif"><br></font></font></div><div><font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif">Anyway, the point is that I interpreted this to represent two states, since there was no indication whatever that they were intended as two distinct units of publication, the principle criterion for "issue". The other point was that I reckoned that holdings would be added indiscriminately to either of two separate records that I might make; and that the story that I had to tell depended much on proximity of notes that detailed the points of variation between the two states.</font></font></div>
<div><font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif"><br></font></font></div><div><font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif">Moreover, for most people's purposes, these states are duplicates, and would certainly appear to be so to most users of the catalog. The distinction is made at a level of analysis that is not prominent--there couldn't be a 250 12mo issue vs. 250 8vo issue, and the addition of "(8vo)" vs. "(12mo)" is not strong in the context of a comprehensive database.</font></font></div>
<div><font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif"><br></font></font></div><div><font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif">Take it as you will. I might try to create separate records now, for reasons which occur to you all. But maybe not. And I'm going to try to restore something of the story to the OCLC record. (Why it's an M record I have no idea. The RLIN record was entered as full-level.)</font></font></div>
<div><font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif"><br></font></font></div><div><font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif">All this aside, the edition one of the weirdest things I've ever seen--it must have been absurdly labor intensive to re-impose every gathering, but so they did.</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, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Lawler, Martha <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Martha.Lawler@lsus.edu">Martha.Lawler@lsus.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
I agree with Lenore and Deborah and I would also add a note to the 12mo record indicating the 8vo version -- just to keep things synchronized (e.g. "The same setting of type was also printed using an 8vo imposition.")<br>
<br>
Martha Lawler<br>
James Smith Noel Collection<br>
LSU-Shreveport<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL, and/or EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this communication in error, please destroy all copies of the message, whether in electronic or hard copy format, as well as attachments and immediately contact the sender by replying to this email.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
<br>
<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 Deborah J. Leslie<br>
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 10:54 AM<br>
To: DCRM Revision Group List<br>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] edition, state<br>
<br>
In bibliographical terms, the 8vo and 12mo impositions are different 'issues', which according to DCRM(B), get different records. Since it's a pre-1801 imprint, it will not be subjected to OCLC de-duping. And if our request to OCLC goes through, since it will have an 040 ‡e dcrmb, it will doubly not be subjected to automatic de-duping.<br>
<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 Lenore Rouse<br>
Sent: Monday, 07 February, 2011 12:14<br>
To: DCRM Revision Group List<br>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] edition, state<br>
<br>
Hi Larry,<br>
<br>
Interesting question. I would opine that the answer to #1 should be yes<br>
even if it IS the same setting of type, or at least I would certainly<br>
want different records to record different formats. The printer may not<br>
be changing individual type pages but he is bound to have to change the<br>
imposition of those pages. As to #2 I'm not sure how relentless the<br>
de-dupe juggernaut is, but one would hope that there will be sufficient<br>
difference between the size, pagination, etc. of the books to preserve<br>
your new record. Including the format and collation should help.<br>
<br>
However it occurs to me this may all be moot as I dimly remember reading<br>
that auto de-duping or merging of records is not being used for pre-1800<br>
material? Look forward to more discussion on this.<br>
Lenore<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/7/2011 11:26 AM, Laurence Creider wrote:<br>
> I am cataloging The miscellaneous works of Tobias Smollett, M.D.<br>
> London : Printed for J. Mundell & Co., Edinburgh, and for J. Mundell,<br>
> College, Glasgow, 1796. I have 5 of the six volumes. The copies I<br>
> have found in WorldCat give the format as 8vo with a note: The same<br>
> setting of type was also printed using a 12 imposition. Our copy is<br>
> in 12mo, with horizontal signatures.<br>
><br>
> Two different but not un-related issues.<br>
><br>
> 1) Does using the same setting of type with a different imposition<br>
> count as a separate edition?<br>
><br>
> 2) Should I input a separate record into OCLC for the 12mo version? If<br>
> so, how would I qualify it to avoid the dreaded OCLC de-duplication<br>
> algorithm?<br>
><br>
<br>
--<br>
Lenore M. Rouse<br>
Curator, Rare Books& Special Collections<br>
The Catholic University of America<br>
Room 214, Mullen Library<br>
620 Michigan Avenue N.E.<br>
Washington, D.C. 20064<br>
<br>
PHONE: 202 319-5090<br>
E-MAIL: <a href="mailto:rouse@cua.edu">rouse@cua.edu</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>