<div dir="ltr">In collaboration with Kathie Coblentz, LCCN # no2009079894 has been replaced.<div><br></div><div>Thank you, everyone, for your input.</div><div><br></div><div>-Kate</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Ted P Gemberling <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tgemberl@uab.edu" target="_blank">tgemberl@uab.edu</a>></span> wrote:<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;font-family:"Cambria","serif"">Kathie,
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cambria","serif"">I looked at the old LCRI 22.2, and it does seem that it was clearer than the current
</span><span style="font-family:"Cambria","serif"">LC-PCC PS. Case 1 reads “if the personal name of the widow of a printer is used in the item being cataloged or in reference sources (cf. LCRI 22.1B) but is also referred to as the widow of the printer, establish
the printer under her personal name.” I wonder why the LC-PCC PS reversed that to “If a woman is referred to as a 'printer's widow' in the resource being cataloged and/or in reference sources and her personal name is known …” Maybe someone just screwed up
in transposing some of the phrases when it was adapted for RDA. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria","serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria","serif"">The LCRI provides three very clear examples:
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><u></u><span>1)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><u></u><span style="font-family:"Cambria","serif"">Bonhomme, Yolanda (personal name)</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cambria","serif""><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><u></u><span>2)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><u></u><span style="font-family:"Cambria","serif"">Vidua Gothofredi Liebernickelii</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cambria","serif""><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><u></u><span>3)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><u></u><span style="font-family:"Cambria","serif"">Vandenhoeck, widow</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cambria","serif""><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cambria","serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cambria","serif"">That implies to me that the phrase in direct order (case 2) is usable only when you have more than the surname of the deceased printer.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cambria","serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cambria","serif"">Richard’s response:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cambria","serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:"Cambria","serif"">“In that case, la veuve Bordelet is not
</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:"Cambria","serif"">identified only by a surname and term such as</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:"Cambria","serif"">
</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:"Cambria","serif"">“widow,”</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:"Cambria","serif""> but rather
</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:"Cambria","serif"">is identified only as the widow of the printer …”</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cambria","serif""><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cambria","serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cambria","serif"">seems to conceive Veuve as if it might be some sort of forename. But you can’t be a widow without being a widow of someone, so I think the distinction between 2 and 3 must lie
in whether you have the deceased printer’s full name. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cambria","serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cambria","serif"">I agree with you that Bordelet, Marie-Jeanne is the most appropriate form for the case you brought up. The personal name is especially appropriate for this case since she was
widow to more than one printer. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cambria","serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cambria","serif"">Best, Ted Gemberling<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cambria","serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></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""> <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>Kathie Coblentz<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, September 09, 2013 5:10 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu" target="_blank">dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu</a></span></p><div><div class="h5"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [DCRM-L] Printers' widows<u></u><u></u></div></div><p></p><div><div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am glad that I'm not the only one who finds this issue confusing.<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would like to mention again one thing that was in my original post. It may have gotten overlooked in all the theorizing. The widow's personal name (her forenames and her maiden name) was already available in the original source cited,
at the time it was cited. That is, the CERL online thesaurus, "viewed May 8, 2009." <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The entry in the CERL thesaurus for "Bordelet, Veuve de Marc ( - 1773)" was last changed on "2004-02-09." Here are the "General Notes" from that entry (which is from the BnF): <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">"Jusqu'en 1766, travaille en association avec son gendre Claude Fosse, qui a épousé sa fille Marie-Madeleine Mongé<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">"Libraire <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">"Nom de jeune fille : Marie-Jeanne Largentier <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">"Épouse en 1res noces Joseph Mongé, qui la laisse veuve avant 1723 (cf. notice Mongé, Veuve de Joseph). Épouse en 2es noces Marc Bordelet, cousin de son défunt mari. À son second veuvage (nov. 1754), reprend l'affaire. En 1755 encore,
fait paraître au moins 2 éd. sous le nom de son mari. En faillite en mai 1760" <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">When the NAF record for "Veuve Bordelet, d. 1773" was created in 2009, under the LCRI to AACR 2 22.2, the instruction was in effect the same as under RDA: <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">"If the personal name of the widow of a printer is used in the item being cataloged or in reference sources (cf. LCRI 22.1B) but [she] is also referred to as the widow of a printer, establish the printer under her personal name. Make a
see reference from the personal name of the printer qualified by 'widow of.''' <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Therefore, the correct AACR 2 form when the heading was set up was "Bordelet, Marie-Jeanne." <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">As an aside, I want to reiterate my belief that the dates of her late husband have no place in the variant access point (or "see reference") that uses his name, and could only lead to confusion. In the LC-PCC PS version of the LCRI quoted
above, it says: "In the authority record add a variant access point consisting of the husband’s name followed by 'widow of"." <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">"Husband's name" here cannot be taken to mean "preferred access point for the husband." If dates are added as a qualifier to an access point, they have to be dates associated with the person in the access point, not some other person in
another access point.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Finally, if it makes a difference whether the usage in resources published by the widow is ever anything other than her husband's surname alone: She does in fact use the form "Apud viduam M. Bordelet" in at least two resources. However,
by far the most frequent form found is just "veuve Bordelet," which would fall under what the LCRI calls using the word "widow" "as a term of address" and the LC PCC PS calls the case where a widow is "identified only by a surname and term such as 'widow'."
That is, the form found in resources associated with her does not identify her as the widow of a printer, but only as someone named "Bordelet" who is a widow.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In that case, the original entry, if her personal name was not known (which in fact it was), should have been "Bordelet, veuve," not "veuve Bordelet." <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br clear="all">
<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">--------------------------------------------------------<br>
Kathie Coblentz, Rare Materials Cataloger<br>
Collections Strategy/Special Formats Processing<br>
The New York Public Library, Stephen A. Schwarzman Building<br>
5th Avenue and 42nd Street, Room 313<br>
New York, NY 10018<br>
</span><a href="mailto:kathiecoblentz@nypl.org" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">kathiecoblentz@nypl.org</span></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><br>
<br>
My opinions, not NYPL's</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: Ted P Gemberling <<a href="mailto:tgemberl@uab.edu" target="_blank">tgemberl@uab.edu</a>><br>
To: DCRM Users' Group <<a href="mailto:dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu" target="_blank">dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu</a>><br>
Cc: <br>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 18:12:46 +0000<br>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Printers' widows<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Kate,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">It does seem that case 2 only becomes meaningful if we use a form like “Veuve de Marc Bordelet.”
Otherwise there is no real difference between the information we’re conveying between Bordelet, Veuve (Bordelet, widow in RDA?) and Veuve Bordelet.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">However, if the form “Veuve de Marc Bordelet” or “Veuve Marc Bordelet” doesn’t actually occur on
title pages, I wonder if it’s appropriate to make it up. Maybe we’re stuck with case 3, Bordelet, Veuve (or Bordelet, widow?).
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Was Richard saying that because Veuve Bordelet was correct based on the information available when
the authority was created, it does not need to be changed now even though we know her full name? In other words, it was *<b>some</b>* sort of correct AACR2/RDA form, so we retain it even when we have better information?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I hope I haven’t confused things more. This is a pretty confusing issue.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Ted Gemberling</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Kate S. Moriarty, MSW, MLS | Rare Book Catalog Librarian | Associate Professor | Pius XII Memorial Library | <br>Saint Louis University | 3650 Lindell Blvd . | St. Louis, MO 63108 | (314) 977-3024 (tel) | (314) 977-3108 (fax) | <a href="mailto:moriarks@slu.edu" target="_blank">moriarks@slu.edu</a> | <a href="http://libraries.slu.edu/" target="_blank">http://libraries.slu.edu/</a>
</div>