<font size="2"><font face="georgia,serif">I heartily agree with Stephen, principally because the underlying approach, regardless of any imperative to minimize the number and character count of notes, favors clarity of information. I wish that the notes in question could be reduced to less tightly prescriptive guidelines, in this case regarding the graphics or other nontextual content of the book/manifestation in hand. If one wishes to emphasize technique, or note the range of elements in which a technique has been used, don't scatter--consolidate and tell the story.</font></font><div>
<font size="2"><font face="georgia,serif"><br></font></font></div><div><font size="2"><font face="georgia,serif">But I have largely given up on these discussions, because I think we are pursuing a will-o-the-wisp, when we're not perfectly aligning the deck chairs on the Titanic. The attempt to produce the impeccably anonymous, perfectly generic record is one I long ago gave up on, after seeing how often it devolved into withholding and fragmenting a potentially coherent account--frustrated, that is, any attempt to be truly descriptive, to relate (yes, as succinctly as possible of course) process, structure, and intellectual content in a way that makes sense and reflects an understanding of how a given book works, and how it relates to other books. </font></font></div>
<div><font size="2"><font face="georgia,serif"><br></font></font></div><div><font size="2"><font face="georgia,serif">The kerfuffle over the 250 field for concealed editions was what finally turned me off this whole crazy project. What it was once impracticable to discover about a book--in, let's say, 1990--it is now often possible to determine with a half-hour's intense exploitation of online resources, in the process perhaps dispelling all sorts of nonsense that resulted from dealing with these things in isolation. I want to report those findings, and flag them, and indicate sources. (Unsourced statements in catalog records are the bane of my existence--I end up screaming at the screen, "How do you <i>know</i> that??") Sometimes I have to loosen the buckles on the AACR/DCRM strait jacket.</font></font></div>
<div><font size="2"><font face="georgia,serif"><br></font></font></div><div><font size="2"><font face="georgia,serif">Yes, the rules do, <i>inter alia</i>, provide a consistent structure for descriptive data, which is immensely valuable; but they can, if overdrawn, distract the wise and provide cover for the foolish. In this forum, I know that I'm addressing/ranting at the wise, and with apologies beforehand will revert to lurking and muttering to myself, because I haven't got the time to puzzle my head over perfectly fitted fill-in-the-blanks notes, and I don't think you have either.</font></font></div>
<div><font size="2"><font face="georgia,serif"><br></font></font></div><div><font size="2"><font face="georgia,serif">But still, blessings upon you all for caring so much about the work, in the face of an uncaring world.</font></font></div>
<div><font size="2"><font face="georgia,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">2011/10/28 Stephen A Skuce <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:skuce@mit.edu">skuce@mit.edu</a>></span><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-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">There's the added weight of the glossary entry for "Illustration," which explicitly excludes head- and tail-pieces, initials, and ornaments. So the specific "Woodcuts" example at 7B10.3 in DCRM(B) is far from ideal, since the rule is concerned with "details of illustrations."<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">I agree with the proposal by Jane and Nina: delete the "Woodcuts" example from 7B10.3, reword it (remove "ill.") and move it to 7B10.1<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">The fact remains that we want our notes to be as succinct, and as few in number, as possible. Thus in the real world, I think it IS a good idea to combine "ill." and "initials" in a note about, say, the woodcuts in a volume. Creating two separate notes in such an instance seems user-unfriendly. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Jane and Nina's proposal doesn't forbid such best-practice. It simply leaves such a formulation up to the cataloger, and removes the ambiguity introduced by that badly-placed example.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Stephen<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div><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>Deborah J. Leslie<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, October 27, 2011 3:48 PM<br><b>To:</b> DCRM Revision Group List<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [DCRM-L] DPC: relocating and editing confusing example in DCRMB7B10.3<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal">
<u></u> <u></u></p><p><span style="color:#31849B">There's a little ambiguity about ornaments and such. Although they are illustrative, they are not to be considered illustrations for the purpose of the 300‡b. So yes, either move the examples to 7B10.1, or change the wording on 7B10.3 to "Give fuller details of illustrative elements ..."<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#0070C0"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#0070C0">Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. | Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare Library | 201 East Capitol St., S.E. | Washington, D.C. 20003<br>
<a href="mailto:djleslie@folger.edu" target="_blank"><span style="color:#0070C0">djleslie@folger.edu</span></a></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#0070C0">| <a href="tel:202.675-0369" value="+12026750369" target="_blank">202.675-0369</a> | <a href="http://www.folger.edu/" target="_blank"><span style="color:#0070C0">http://www.folger.edu</span></a> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#0070C0"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p><span style="color:#31849B"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><u></u> <u></u></p><p>From: <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>] On Behalf Of Carpenter, Jane<u></u><u></u></p>
<p>Sent: Wednesday, 26 October 2011 20:04<u></u><u></u></p><p>To: DCRM Revision Group List<u></u><u></u></p><p>Subject: [DCRM-L] DPC: relocating and editing confusing example in DCRMB7B10.3<u></u><u></u></p><p><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p>Dear Colleagues,<u></u><u></u></p><p><u></u> <u></u></p><p>While working on the new edition of Examples to Accompany DCRM(B), Nina Schneider and I went back and forth on which rule to use—7B10.1 or 7B10.3-- to justify notes describing ornamental initials, and publishers’ and printers’ devices. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u> <u></u></p><p>Rule 5C1.3 clearly states: “Do not regard ornaments (e.g., head-pieces, vignettes, tail-pieces, printers’ devices), pictorial covers, or pictorial dust jackets as illustrations. If considered important, these may be mentioned in a note (see 7B10).” <u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u> <u></u></p><p>Although ornaments should not be considered as illustrations, the sample note for describing ornaments appears under 7B10.3, the rule dealing with illustrations: “Give fuller details of the illustrations, if considered important….”<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u> <u></u></p><p>Current text of second example in 7B10.3:<u></u><u></u></p><p><u></u> <u></u></p><p>Woodcuts: ill., initials, publisher’s and printer’s devices.<u></u><u></u></p><p><u></u> <u></u></p><p>Proposed change:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p>• Delete the above example from 7B10.3<u></u><u></u></p><p>• Revise wording of the sample note, and move it to 7B10.1, which governs notes on important physical details<u></u><u></u></p><p><u></u> <u></u></p><p>Woodcuts: initials, publisher’s and printer’s devices.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u> <u></u></p><p>Any objections? Improvements?<u></u><u></u></p><p><u></u> <u></u></p><p>Thanks for your feedback,<u></u><u></u></p><p>Nina Schneider, Editor of Examples to Accompany DCRM(B)<u></u><u></u></p><p>Jane Carpenter<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u> <u></u></p></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>