<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;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle19
{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">We DCRM(MSS) editors agree wholeheartedly, Richard, that scripts, screenplays, and the like fall into a real gray area, bringing up a number of intriguing questions
(or sucking one into a number of intellectual swamps, depending on one’s outlook). For one: When does a work cross the dividing line between “unpublished” and “published”? If I write a letter to Mother on a typewriter using carbon paper, so that there are
two carbon copies in addition to the original, and I hand the two copies to my siblings, does it count as a publication? What if I take the same letter and run off 10 copies on a photocopier and send them out to family members? What if I run off 50 copies
on the photocopier and sell them downtown for 10 cents each? Which of these factors (if any) makes the letter a publication? If the letter is handwritten rather than typewritten, does that make it “more manuscript-y”? Should it matter whether it’s handwritten
or typewritten?<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">Another issue: Is a version of a manuscript equivalent in some sense to an edition of a published work? Where does version information belong in the catalog
record?<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">Another issue: What balance should be struck between consistency across formats on the one hand, and responsiveness to the nature of each format in the interests
of accurate description on the other hand? RDA is pulling us firmly onto the side of consistency across formats, but what’s the tradeoff that we make if we go that route? Where do we strike the balance between consistency and flexibility? Where do we obey
RDA, and where do we beg to differ?<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 DCRM(MSS) editorial team will be wrestling with some of these issues next week at its Fall meeting. Wish us luck (and strong coffee)!<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">Best,<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">Margaret<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"><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"><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"><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> Monday, September 09, 2013 10:27 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> DCRM Users' Group<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [DCRM-L] MSS editions To bracket or not in cataloging manuscripts<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif"">In the discussion of "To bracket or not in cataloging manuscripts" Erin has addressed a tangential topic that also implies a further question.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif"">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif"">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"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></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"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></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif"">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).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif""> 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?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif"">Bibliography of published books is so
<i>easy</i> compared with this stuff ...<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Courier New"">RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY</span><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Courier New"">BROWN UNIVERSITY :: PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912 :: 401-863-1187</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Courier New""><</span><a href="mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Courier New"">Richard_Noble@Br</span></a><span style="font-family:"Courier New""><a href="http://own.edu" target="_blank">own.edu</a>></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: <b>Erin Blake</b> <<a href="mailto:EBlake@folger.edu">EBlake@folger.edu</a>><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">202-675-0323</a> | fax <a href="tel:202-675-0328">202-675-0328</a> | <a href="http://www.folger.edu" target="_blank">www.folger.edu</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>