<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=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 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;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Georgia",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" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif;color:#1F497D">Although variant bindings would strictly speaking be considered different "issues," I concur with Madelene and Randal that it is best to catalog them on the same record
and make notes about differences. This is the approach taken by descriptive bibliographies, such as BAL. Either make a specific note about binding variants as is done on the OCLC record Randy mentions, or a general note that there are binding variations, with
specifics associated with particular copies. With 19c books increasingly cataloged according to rare material standards, and without definitive evidence from publishers' archives, you can't be sure you've got them all described.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif;color:#1F497D">Back when work was being done on DCRM2, the editorial group struggled to fit what we called "sub-expressions" or "sub-manifestations" into the IFLA LRM. It became
less pressing with the new RDA toolkit and the decision to present DCRMR as a stand-alone manual. Still, it's an interesting question, how to represent sub-expressions/manifestations in a MARC bibliographic record.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif;color:#1F497D">OTOH, I would put manifestations with different sizes on different records. There's a pretty big difference between 16 cm and 20 cm.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">______________________________<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#5E327C">Deborah J. Leslie, MA, MLS | Senior Cataloger | Folger Shakespeare Library | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 |
<a href="mailto:djleslie@folger.edu"><span style="color:#0563C1">djleslie@folger.edu</span></a> |
<a href="http://www.folger.edu"><span style="color:#0563C1">www.folger.edu</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#1F497D">
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#5E327C">| Opinions her own</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu> <b>On Behalf Of
</b>Randal S. BRANDT<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, April 23, 2022 16:43<br>
<b>To:</b> DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [DCRM-L] Cataloging Question - how to catalog differences in publisher's bindings<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello Sarah,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I agree with Madelene that you will most likely want to catalog all copies on the same bibliographic record. When publisher's binding variants are significant, I usually make a note describing the variants using a 500 note. However, I can
see using a 563 for these types of notes, as well. If there is a published description of the variants, I will reference that description. Then, I use local notes to identify which of the variants is present in our copy(ies). To see an example, look at OCLC# 2981235.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have mostly encountered the need for these types of notes in records for 19th century American literature titles (Mark Twain, George Sterling, Walt Whitman, etc.). That seems to be a time period when publishers (in the U.S. at least)
were particularly fond of issuing books in a variety of bindings. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Randal<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 12:45 PM Madelene Kinraid <<a href="mailto:madelene.kinraid@gmail.com">madelene.kinraid@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></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">Kia ora Sarah,<br>
<br>
I think keeping both/ all copies on the same record and recording the binding information in a 563 is perfect. You might need to assign copy numbers to differentiate, I would use a separate 563 to describe the binding of each copy. At our library I would add
the binding information in a 590 note, but that’s just our practice.<br>
<br>
Best wishes <br>
Madelene <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> On 24/04/2022, at 7:12 AM, Sarah Stanhope <<a href="mailto:sstanhop@gmail.com" target="_blank">sstanhop@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Good Afternoon All, <br>
> <br>
> I have a cataloging question that is hopefully not too obvious. I have come across this with mostly special collections items and am a bit unsure how to properly catalog these types of books.
<br>
> <br>
> When you have two books with completely different bindings and the text blocks are identical, would you add the binding information to a 563 and add both items on the same record?
<br>
> <br>
> Are there any other fields/notes that you commonly add or would suggest? I haven't really come across this scenario for items that have different dimensions. Other than the binding (sometimes quite different and more elaborate than the other), the text block
and all the publication information matches. <br>
> <br>
> Please let me know if you have any suggestions or can point me in the right direction!<br>
> <br>
> My sincere thanks, <br>
> Sarah Stanhope<br>
> Hirsch Library<br>
> Museum of Fine Arts, Houston<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br clear="all">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Randal S. Brandt<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Bancroft Library | University of California, Berkeley<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">510.643.2275 | <a href="mailto:rbrandt@berkeley.edu" target="_blank">
rbrandt@berkeley.edu</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>