DCRM(S) pt. 4

[Patrick Russell]

Hi all:

Yes use "In the language of the cataloging agency."

AS to pub. address, DCRB and DCRS should agree

Patrick
At 12:05 PM 1/19/01 -0700, Robert L. Maxwell wrote:
>http://www.library.yale.edu/conser/documents/dcrs.html	
>
>4A3. In the interest of being explicit, I suggest you add somewhere here 
>"Do not transpose." For example, you might word the last sentence to say 
>"... transcribe the imprint 'as is' (i.e., do not transpose) ..." or 
>perhaps better " ... transcribe the imprint as it appears (i.e., do not 
>transpose) ..." By the way, why is it O.K. to transpose in the numeric etc. 
>area but not here? It has never been clear to me why we allow transposition 
>in DCRB, e.g., in the transcription of the title/statement of 
>responsibility but make a big deal of not allowing it here in the 
>publication area.
>
>At the end of the first paragraph it should be made clear that the 
>bracketed place name should be given in the language of the cataloging 
>agency (no?).
>
>This is also the rule where it is made explicit that the cataloger is not 
>to abbreviate in this area. The second sentence seems to be speaking of 
>publisher names and addresses, however. Assuming you do mean to include 
>place names (as the example to 4B6 shows), perhaps it could be reworded to 
>say "Do not shorten, abbreviate, or omit place names, publisher names, or 
>addresses except as allowed in the following rules."
>
>In DCRB 4C2 the default is to omit the address (with the option of leaving 
>it in). Why is its transcription required here (and in DCRM(S) 4C2)? It 
>seems to me that you would want to omit it in a serial all the more than in 
>a monograph, since over the life of a serial the address of the publisher 
>could well change several times, making the transcription in the 260 
>applicable only to some but not all of the issues. Why is DCRM(S) *more* 
>intent on recording the address than DCRB?
>
>An example (with the original wording of the piece) of treatment of 
>addresses in modern rare serials would be useful. Also a definition of 
>"modern."
>
>4A4. An example would be helpful.
>
>4B3. I think we have established that references to doing things in English 
>would be replaced in DCRM with "in the language of the cataloging agency." 
>And by the way, example no. 2, "Le Haye" *is* the (or at least one) modern 
>form of the name, so it wouldn't need to have a bracketed explanation under 
>the rule even as it now stands. You might instead reword the rule to say 
>"If considered necessary for information, supply in square brackets a form 
>of the place name in the language of the cataloging agency." That way you 
>rely on the cataloger's judgment and don't have to make distinctions about 
>whether the form of the name on the piece is "modern" or not.
>
>4B5. I suggest you add to the end "if necessary for identification."
>
>4B9. Add "in the language of the cataloging agency" after "probable place" 
>(1st paragraph), "province, or country" (2nd paragraph)
>
>4D3, second example, I believe the convention is three spaces after the 
>information in angle brackets: <1644   >
>
>4D4. The rule about phrases seems to produce extremely odd results. "London 
>:|b[s.n.] Printed A.D.,|c1650" seems somewhat over the top, if I may say 
>so. "A.D." at least is clearly part of the date, and the word "Printed" has 
>nothing to do with the publisher's name, what traditionally would go in |b. 
>In the second example, I would personally think "printed at the full of the 
>moon" was, again, part of the DATE, not the publisher statement. Could you 
>reconsider this? I don't see any particular rare materials reason why this 
>very odd way of setting up the 260 field should be required in our rules.
>
>Also, shouldn't these two examples have a dash after the year?
>
>4D5. Why do you depart from DCRB in the matter of Roman numerals? In DCRB 
>Roman numeral dates are by default transcribed as arabic and not bracketed. 
>Optionally they Roman numeral may be retained. Why is it thought necessary 
>in the serials rules to bracket? Is there some serials reason why this 
>should be treated differently? Those who are used to reading AACR2 and DCRB 
>records will not assume that "[1656]" stands for a Roman numeral, since in 
>the records they are used to the number wouldn't be bracketed. Is there 
>some reason why you just can't take all of DCRB 4D2 as it stands into the 
>serials rules?
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Robert L. Maxwell
>Special Collections and Ancient Languages Cataloger
>6430 Harold B. Lee Library
>Brigham Young University
>Provo, UT 84602
>(801) 378-5568
>robert_maxwell at byu.edu
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>
>