[DCRB-L] Re: General principles draft, 20021116 (fwd)

[Laurence Creider]

As requested ...
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 22:02:38 -0700 (MST)
From: Laurence Creider <lcreider at lib.NMSU.Edu>
To: Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu>
Subject: Re: General principles draft, 20021116

Folks,
My comments on Joe's draft:

John Attig is dead on in his assessment that Joe has produced a very nice
document that adroitly makes use of currently important and respected
cataloging theory.  Given the  folks who are supporting this conference
and the need for rare materials cataloging to not be sidelined, we owe Joe
many thanks.  In the spirit of John's comment's, I would like to raise a
few points that I think would benefit from some strengthening or
reconsideration.  

My version of the document didn't come with page numbers; please pardon
the quotations.  The draft says, "Specialized rules for describing rare
materials serve to provide clearer access to information about specific
relationships of those manifestations and items to other entities."  This
statement comes in a paragraph with a reference to Tanselle's article on
the difference between cataloging and bibliography.   Somewhere we need to
try to clarify the relationship between what we catalogers aim at and what
bibliographers aim at.  Various things spring to mind: the bibliographer
needs to look at as many copies of a manifestation as possible, noting the
similarities and differences and seeking to relate the different groups to
one another.  The cataloger is ultimately concerned with only a few items
and has not the time (nor usually the means or skills) to examine a large
number of items.  When relating different items and manifestations, the
cataloger generally relies on the work of others.  Catalogers can provide
data for bibliographers, but they do not generally do research.

In section b) the reference for additional specialized vocabulary should
probably reference lists not contained in DCRM such as the BSC thesauri.

Section f0 might include the standardization of citations.  A great deal
of the relating of items and manifestations is actually done through the
citation of different sources, and one of the real contributions of DCRB
has been the use of a standard citation pattern and forms for constructing
such citations when they are not in authorized lists.

I flat out disagree with the notion in Section g) that the numbering of
DCRM should be as parallel to AACR2 as possible.  The numbers in AACR2
have changed from one version (expression? Manifestation?) to another.
Certainly, we should keep the same areas and general scheme where those
seem permanent.  But to do more is to try to create consistency where it
is neither possible nor helpful. People will have to use AACR2 and DCRM,
along with LCRIs, Map Cataloging manuals, LCSH, various thesauri and
system requirements and standards.  A major cause of the weaknesses of
some of the archival cataloging I have seen is that the cataloger seeks to
use APPM without reference to AACR2 for headings or even type of material.

The bullets at the end are not "a reiteration of the basis for differences
in emphasis" but a drawing out of practical implications from Svenonius'
principles.  I would add to them a bullet stating the need for extra
access points for both intellectual and physical features that are
relevant.  Printers' names, genre terms, binding terms, even the need to
violate the rule of 3 when recording the names of editors and for
violating the LCRIs for added access points for translators for title
added entries.

The following comments are not directly related to Joe's draft but contain
some ideas we may want to think about.

FRBR seems to be sweeping the world before it, and aligning our rules with
it is a good idea.  However, there are some problems with the basic
categories of work, expression, manifestation and item, and some of those
become apparent when rare materials are considered.  The FRBR report
admits that the definitions of work and expression and manifestations are
not adequate and tries to make some virtue of the necessity.  However, the
inadequacies lead to practical problems for catalogers and should be
addressed.  Martha Yee and Richard Smiraglia have done some great
reseearch on the concept of "work," but the definition still is
problematic, particularly when one gets to the boundaries of work and
expression.  Calepino's polyglot dictionary is issued in many editions.
When we tried to create a uniform title for the thing, it became apparent
that languages were added in subsequent editions.  AACR2 treats such
things as different works, certainly not linking them by uniform titles,
but scholars will probably most generally use them interchangeably.  Then
there is the question of when a translation ceases to be an expression and
when it becomes another work.  I cataloged a couple hundred 18th century
German popular plays, "18th century sitcoms" a friend called them.  Many
said they were translations of French, Italian or English originals.  When
the words were clearly translations, this was not a problem.  Nor was the
renaming of characters a problem.  When the number of scenes and acts
changed, the issue became more complicated.  Work or expression?  I made
choices, some of them undoubtedly wrong.  

While John is correct to say that a different manifestation means a
different expression when there are changes, the FRBR report does say that
a different manifestation may mean a different expression, but not always.
Octavo, quarto, duodecimo, and London and Dublin 18th century editions of
the Spectator are different manifestations but not different expressions.
On the other hand, the Spectator and the essays from the Spectator are
different expressions, as are groups of the essays by the individual
authors.  The FRBR report does say that the manifestation and item
entities can be used to describe subgroups, but the writers do not expand
on this.  We need some terminology for the classes between manifestation
and items, such as states and issues.  Sometimes we need to or feel the
need to make bibliographic records to represent individual states and
issues, sometimes even (as in the case of the Folger's First Folios or
some incunables), we need to create separate records for individual items.
These obviously fit into the category of serving the user function of
identification, but perhaps we need to propose that the categories of
manifestation and item need fuller amplication in the FRBR model.  Of
course, these issues may also fit in with Group 6's mission.



Laurence S. Creider
Head, General Cataloging Unit
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 505-646-4707
Fax: 505-646-7477
lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu