<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">In the discussion of "To bracket or not in cataloging manuscripts" Erin has addressed a tangential topic that also implies a further question.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">Regarding Erin's Question: RDA instructs (2.5.1.1 Scope) that "For resources in an unpublished form, statements indicating the version of the work contained in the resource are treated as edition statements. Some examples of a resource in an unpublished form are manuscript drafts or videorecordings that have not been commercially released or broadcast." That's pretty direct, and certainly applies to a statement such as "Production draft" in her example (cf. the example under 2.3.2.3, "Draft, May 2000"). It should no doubt be taken into account in a revised DCRM for mss.<br>
</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">Further Question: I have recently cataloged a couple of mimeographed Hollywood scripts much like Erin's example, one as OCLC type t, the other as type a. I'd be interested in the thoughts of others regarding the appropriateness of the designation in such cases. I'm now leaning towards type a for both of these items, especially since I could not see any rationale for duplicating the record for <i>Nothing sacred</i>, from which I copy cataloged for Brown, having RDAddled the record in upgrading it from M to I.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="georgia, serif"><a href="http://josiah.brown.edu/search~S7?/twhite+christmas/twhite+christmas/1%2C18%2C60%2CB/marc&FF=twhite+christmas+motion+picture&3%2C%2C3">http://josiah.brown.edu/search~S7?/twhite+christmas/twhite+christmas/1%2C18%2C60%2CB/marc&FF=twhite+christmas+motion+picture&3%2C%2C3</a></font><br>
</div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="georgia, serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="georgia, serif"><a href="http://josiah.brown.edu/search~S7?/tnothing+sacred/tnothing+sacred/1%2C5%2C7%2CB/marc&FF=tnothing+sacred+motion+picture&1%2C1%2C">http://josiah.brown.edu/search~S7?/tnothing+sacred/tnothing+sacred/1%2C5%2C7%2CB/marc&FF=tnothing+sacred+motion+picture&1%2C1%2C</a><br>
</font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">
My sense is that designation of a "resource" (such language ...) as type t creates the expectation that it is inherently unique, and that the record for it is not appropriate for copy cataloging/addition of holdings, only for derivation as the basis of another master record for a similar resource. What I had in hand, as in the case of Erin's example, is inherently <i>not</i> unique, though the copy in hand differs in some resepcts from others. We have the script as originally delivered. I reckoned that in the case of an inscribed, extra-illustrated copy (inscribed by Selznick, with three actors' headshots) that the variation was copy-specific. I'm less certain regarding the Ohio State copy, which does exhibit characteristics of a "continuing resource" (the addition of a week's worth of revision pages, apparently without change to the cover designation).</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"> So what's the real difference between a "manuscript" text and an "unpublished" text? The use of a duplicating medium? (What about ribbon and carbon copies?) Is copy-catalogability a proper criterion for choosing a record type?</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">Bibliography of published books is so <i>easy</i> compared with this stuff ...</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace">RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY</span><br>
</div><div><div><font face="'courier new', monospace">BROWN UNIVERSITY :: PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912 :: 401-863-1187</font></div><div><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace"><</span><a href="mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU" style="font-family:'courier new',monospace" target="_blank">Richard_Noble@Br</a><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace"><a href="http://own.edu" target="_blank">own.edu</a></span><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace">></span></div>
</div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Erin Blake</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:EBlake@folger.edu">EBlake@folger.edu</a>></span><br>Date: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 3:09 PM<br>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] To bracket or not in cataloging manuscripts<br>To: DCRM Users' Group <<a href="mailto:dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu">dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu</a>><br><br><br>I think one of the issues that was giving some people pause was that it can be desireable to describe a manuscript that presents itself as a book the same way that a book is described, so not even having the option of Area 2 for an edition statement was a problem. Deborah mentioned in person that DCRM(B) could add an appendix on using DCRM(B) to catalog manuscripts.<br>
<br>
I imagine this would be useful for typescripts such as screenplays, which present themselves formally and are mechanically reproduced. Though unpublished, they’re circulated by a corporate distributor. For example, you could end up with something like:<br>
As you like it by William Shakespeare [manuscript] / screenplay by Kenneth Branagh.<br>
Production draft.<br>
[S.l.] : HBO Films & Shakespeare Film Company, 14/03/05.<br>
<br>
The appendix would be analogous to DCRM(S)’s projected appendix on manuscript serials, and DCRM(G)’s appendix on cataloging material with title pages as graphic material rather than as books.<br>
<br>
Erin.<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------<br>
Erin C. Blake, Ph.D. | Curator of Art & Special Collections | Folger Shakespeare Library | 201 E. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC, 20009 | <a href="mailto:eblake@folger.edu">eblake@folger.edu</a> | office tel. <a href="tel:202-675-0323" value="+12026750323">202-675-0323</a> | fax <a href="tel:202-675-0328" value="+12026750328">202-675-0328</a> | <a href="http://www.folger.edu" target="_blank">www.folger.edu</a><br>
<br></div></div>