<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 14 (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:Georgia;
panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 4 5 2 3 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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@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">This is certainly an issue the DCRM revision group should take into consideration. Meanwhile, I remind you that the new RDA BIBCO Standard Record
<a href="http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/scs/documents/PCC-RDA-BSR.pdf">http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/scs/documents/PCC-RDA-BSR.pdf</a> instructs, under 2.8.2 “For rare materials, generally record all places of publication” and under 2.8.4 “For rare materials, generally
record all publishers’ names”. Although I admit it wasn’t the intent when that was written into the BSR, I think that language could cover
<i>all</i> places and publishers, i.e., both the fictitious <i>and</i> the real place and publisher. So I think an argument could be made even as the BSR is currently written for a formulation, in rare materials cataloging, such as<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">264 1 $a Londres [that is, Paris] : $b Per Marthurin Marchant [that is, John Wolfe] …<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">I realize those probably don’t go together, I’m just stitching together the examples from DCRM(B).<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">The purpose of the trial period for the BSR was to find issues exactly like this that may have been overlooked when the BSR was being formulated. If the community
agrees that this is a problem, we could propose revisions such as this to the BSR at the end of the trial period (which I believe went through the end of this year). Meanwhile I think you are justified going ahead and entering the information in an RDA record
as DCRM(B) calls for it, as long as you code the record in 040 both rda and dcrmb.<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">I haven’t consulted with the others, but I’m sure the BSR rare materials TG would be perfectly happy to propose a change to the BSR language for rare materials
at 2.8.2, 2.8.4, and 2.8.6 to acount for rare procedures for fictitious publication information if the community and BSC agree, though I’d be interested in hearing discussion about it because, as mentioned, this is also relevant to the DCRM revision group’s
work.<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">As you mention, a tweak to MARC could also be proposed, with an indicator for “corrected information”. This would satisfy RDA’s requirement to make a note (rather
than record with the publication information)—RDA never says <i>where</i> the information has to be recorded, so recording this sort of information in 264 with coding making the field for corrected information would be fine. And it would satisfy the display
issue you write about, Richard. I think it would also satisfy DCRM’s desire to record corrected information, though in a slightly different way from the way we’re now instructed to do it. Would you like to write up such a proposal, Richard?
<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">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Bob<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>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Robert L. Maxwell<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Genre/Form Authorities Librarian<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">6728 Harold B. Lee Library<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Brigham Young University<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Provo, UT 84602<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">(801)422-5568
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza
R. Snow, 1842.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<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" 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> Wednesday, December 12, 2012 9:31 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> DCRM Revision Group List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [DCRM-L] RDA - Transcription and correction of false imprints<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif"">Having just had a first round of RDA training for bib records I was really scandalized by one thing only, not merely annoyed, as in the case of the absurd spellings out
in the 300. (And I did end up trying to clarify the case <i>for </i>RDA, and the concomitant MARC revisions, from time to time.)</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 style="font-family:"Georgia","serif"">RDA 2.8.2.3 / 2.8.6.3 instruct us to transcribe false or fictitious publication data as found, without interpolated correction, and to make a note (per 2.20.7.3) giving
the actual place name, etc. This is a clear violation of what I take to be the whole justification for RDA, its orientation to database structures as such, which surely would entail appropriate tagging of correct information. How can we program
<i>any</i> system to mine corrected publication information out of the welter of notes? Furthermore, will we be constrained to follow fictitious place and date in the MARC fixed field? At that point, we have misplaced and effectively obscured essential information
about a manifestation--so much for FRBR! Granted, one might use the 752 as a container for information about place, at least, but that field is so inconsistently applied as to be useless for comprehensive searching, much less for collocating manifestations
by place. The same applies to access points for actual publishers, printers, etc. (There is, by the way, no mention of false/fictitious publisher data in RDA 2.8). As for dates ...</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif"">The means are to hand in MARC, by way of a repeated 264 field, with a new first indicator to denote corrected publication info (which could be valid for all four second
indicator values). I'm not sure quite why this is necessary--brackets are certainly not
<i>verboten</i> in 260/264, and I don't think all those "transcribe what you see" instructions evidence great concern for integrity of data such that the fictitious imprint must remain pristine in its presentation. (Simplicity of input seems to be the reigning
principle.)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif"">This may not be the exact right forum in which to bring this up, though I do think it has grave implications for our attempts at bibliographically respectable records.
Where <i>are</i> the pressure points for campaigning in such cases? Can such provisions be directly contradicted by way of a Policy Statement? And if such a campaign were to fail (though this has the contours of a hill to die on), could a revised RDA-based
DCRM(B) include provision for getting it right in that context, at least?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif""><br clear="all">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>