DCRM(S) area 4

[Jane Gillis]

Patrick,

Thank you for responding.   Good luck in your retirement.

The list has been inactive for quite some time.  Juliet and I have been very
busy, reading all the suggestions, questions, etc. and making huge changes
(i.e., the document is now much longer) and reorganizing.  We are almost at the
end of this iteration of the rules for rare serials.  In the next week or two,
I will be sending out another notice that changes have been made and we are
ready for more comments, suggestions, etc.

We have left the date in the 260 essentially the same.  Our feeling is that we
will follow (as best possible) what is decided for DCRM.  We want to be
reasonable and consistent.  

What do people think about Roman numerals in dates?  Does DCRB reflect what we
want to do?    I think the questions about the 260 pertain to more than just
the serial format.  as soon as a decision is made on the dates, we can change
DCRM(S).  So feedback on that right now would be helpful.

Jane Gillis

At 10:33 PM 5/3/01 -0700, Patrick J. Russell wrote: 
>
> Sorry about my delay in replying, trying to iron out retirement details,
> adjusting to new situation, andworking part time at Grad. Theological Union
> Library (Berkeley).  However, here goes on Serials (not my forte)
>  
> i agree basically with Jane's point on Roman numerals, and with the need to
> transribe addresses.
>  
> Also, I agree that as much as possible we should be consistent acroos
> "formats" (books, serials, maps, etc.)  Of course this is not always
> possible, but many variations seem to me arbitrary, and confusing to user of
> the catalog, let alone time consuming for the cataloger to figure out which
> "convention" to follow.
>  
> As to "what" should be $b or $c (the "moon" instance) to some extent this is
> question of interpretation and context.  I'll take the person's word for it
> that in the case in point "sign of the moon" refers to date(s), but it could,
> in a certain context, be an address or "name" of a place of ...  Agree that
> if "date" data, should go in $c.
>  
> Patrick
>  
>  
>  
>>
>> -----Original Message----- 
>> From: owner-dcrb-l at lib.byu.edu [mailto:owner-dcrb-l at lib.byu.edu]On Behalf Of
>> Jane Gillis 
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 10:36 AM 
>> To: dcrb-l at lib.byu.edu 
>> Subject: Re: DCRM(S) area 4
>>
>> I am sending this again.  Don't know if everyone got it.
>>
>> While everyone is thinking about Juliet's question on area 4, may I add
>> another concerning Roman numerals?
>>
>> Bob pointed out that DCRM(S) differed from DCRB in the area of Roman
>> numerals, which are:
>>
>> Roman numerals.  When roman numerals appear as Gregorian or Julian years,
>> change them to arabic numerals unless they are erroneous or misprinted. 
>>                  
>> , anno gratiae 1614 
>> (On publication: Anno gratiae MDCXIV)
>>
>> Transcribe years other than Gregorian or Julian as they appear. 
>>                  
>> , an VII 1798 
>> (On publication: An VII, 1798) 
>>          
>> Optionally, if it is considered important to retain in the catalog record
>> the exact expression of the date, transcribe the date as it appears in roman
>> numerals and add the date in arabic numerals in square brackets. 
>>                  
>> , MDCLVI [1656]
>>
>> Fictitious or incorrect dates.  When the year of publication or printing is
>> known to be fictitious or is incorrect, transcribe it as it appears and add
>> the real or correct year in square brackets.  (If the full imprint is
>> fictitious or incorrect, apply 4A4.) 
>>                  
>> , DMLII [i.e. 1552]
>>
>> Juliet and I have discussed these rules and have decided that we will follow
>> what DCRM will be doing in other formats, especially (G) and (B).  Before we
>> change what we have, the committee should consider whether any changes are
>> to be made to DCRM.  Specifically,
>>
>> 1. Why change Roman numerals to arabic, without brackets, only when the
>> numerals appear as Gregorian or Julian years?  
>>
>> 2. And only those Gregorian or Julian years that are not erroneous or
>> misprinted?
>>
>> 3. What is the reason for not transcribing Roman numerals as Roman numerals
>> no matter what they stand for in the imprint?
>>
>> 4. Is the date not a transcribed area?
>>
>> The simplest solution would seem to be to transcribe what is there,
>> bracketing if needed the arabic numeral.   Optionally, if the Roman numerals
>> are not considered important, bracket their translation into arabic
>> numerals.  The rule concerning Roman numerals would be much simpler.
>>
>> How do the rest of you feel?
>>
>>
>>
>> Jane Gillis | Rare Book Cataloger|  Sterling Memorial Library 
>> Yale University | New Haven CT  06520 
>> (203)432-8383 (voice) | (203)432-7231 (fax) | jane.gillis@ yale.edu
>
>