DCRM(S) area 4

[Laurence Creider]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Juliet McLaren wrote:

> Dear Bob et al. ~
> 	Some parts of DCRM(S) area 4 have aroused ire (or at least stress) in
> the bosom of our glorious leader, and perhaps others:  
> 	<italic>Why put phrases in 260 $b which do not include the names of
> printers or publishers? If they seem to relate to a date, they belong in
> 260 $c.
> 
> 	Why do we transcribe addresses as a requirement instead of an option
> when dcrb does it the other way around?
> 
... 

> 	Bob's example of something that should go in the date field  is perhaps
> not the best one he could have chosen: 	<italic>Published at the full of
> the moon,  </italic>may look like a date to some, but it isn't a date;
> the moon is full 12 times a year on different days each time.  It is the
> only recognizable form of an imprint that this publication has, and when
> followed by a year it seems logical to put only the year in the 260 $c. 
> In fact, dcrb is a little fuzzy on this point in two places, first in 4D1
> where the attachment of 'printed' may belong to a place, rather than a
> date as in:  <italic>London printed ...</italic>; and again where a
> statement of date in 4D2 may be perceived as "very long".  
> 

I'm not a serials cataloger, but isn't this almost a statement of
frequency rather than imprint information?  Not to be pedantic, but since
the 12 lunar months is about 354 days (12 X 29.5) every third year or so
has 13 lunar months or at least 13 full moons.  For an explanation, see
most discussions of the "Easter problem" in the early Middle Ages
[References (from Bede and elsewhere) provided on request : )]

...
 
> 
> 	As for the exclusion of addresses, I have a long experience of
> user/researcher/scholar complaints about this one, as well as cataloger
> complaints.  Identifying the date of publication of a work is often not
> possible without a full imprint address. Printers in the US and in
> Britain before 1801 moved around frequently as you know.   Work on
> printing history and bibliography is seriously hampered by the lack of
> addresses as well.  And for 17th century as well as early American
> serials, identification of a specific serial requires the fullest
> possible transcription of all required elements.  For other early
> materials we want to make this fuller transcription a requirement rather
> than an option so that it would be more generally adopted.  For many
> types of rare materials this also seems to be a discussion useful to the
> whole committee.
> 
> 

I actually agree with your point about transcribing addresses.  This is
true even for some 19th century material, if I remember Cornelia King's
comments on tract literature correctly.  However, I think that adopting
this for one format only of DCRM is not a good idea.  As you suggest, the
whole committee should discuss this.  Maybe it could be made an option for
all early materials and included in the next version of the examples.

> 	This is just more grist for our ever-energetic discussions.  Best,
> juliet
> 

As always, I remain awed by the facility with which you and Jane move back
and forth between different sets of cataloging standards and philosophies.

	Larry (for whom this discussion is a pleasant break from
budget-cutting battles)

Laurence S. Creider
Head, General Cataloging Unit
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88011
Work: 505-646-4707
Fax: 505-646-7477
lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu