[DCRB-L] RE: Names of publishers

[Robert Maxwell]

John,

I thought the deletion of 1.4D4 was to get rid of publisher statements
such as "The Library" or "The Museum," not to forbid abbreviating a
publisher's name (if it's a personal name) to initials plus
surname--1.4D2 still says "Give the name of a publisher, distributor,
etc., in the shortest form in which it can be understood and identified
internationally." Presumably the "shortest form" might be a form in
which forenames have been shortened to initials--indeed, we can still
drop forenames entirely (I assume!) on "regular" AACR2 cataloging, so
surely we can give initials instead of dropping the forenames if we
think it necessary! So it's not clear to me why the deletion of 1.4D4
should affect 2.16D and E. The examples in 2.16D-E should be spelled out
as they appeared on the item--and so they should have been before the
deletion of 1.4D4 in the 2002 revision. 

Please do let me know if I have misinterpreted the intent of the
deletion of 1.4D4; but if so, it needs to be publicized rather more
broadly than it has been because it's going to come as a surprise to a
lot of people if they no longer can abbreviate a publisher's name to
his/her initials plus surname. That wasn't my understanding of the
intent of the deletion of 1.4D4.

I do think John's suggestion that better examples illustrating 2.16D and
E, including names fully spelled out, is a good one; and perhaps if
examples such as "London : R. Barker" are left in we should ask for an
italicized note to be added beneath saying something like 'Publisher's
name appears "R. Barker" on the t.p.' in order to waylay confusion.

Also, with reference to John's second question, we certainly need to
ensure that the rules are clear about what can be omitted, etc. 

N.B.!!!! I also suggest that in the revision process of DCRM(B) we have
a look at AACR2 2.12-2.18 and make sure they conform to DCRM(B) (I mean
by this, if the AACR2 rules for Early Printed Monographs don't conform
to DCRM(B) we need to propose rule changes to AACR2. Since we have UK
representation on this list and at the upcoming conference, I should
think we could have unanimous proposals coming from both sides of the
Atlantic--wishful thinking?)

Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Attig [mailto:jca at psulias.psu.edu] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 1:36 PM
> To: dcrb-l at lib.byu.edu
> Subject: Names of publishers
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question that has come up about the rules for rare 
> books at the 
> end of Chapter 2 of AACR2.
> 
> In the 2002 revision of AACR2, rule 1.4D4 -- which authorized 
> abbreviation 
> of the name of a publisher, etc. -- was deleted.
> 
> It has been brought to my attention that several of the 
> examples in AACR 
> rules 2.16D and E use what might be abbreviations for people's names:
> 
> London : R. Barker
> 
> London : Printed for the author and sold by J. Roberts
> 
> Birmingham : Printed by John Baskerville for R. and J. Dodsley ...
> 
> London : Printed for the author and sold by J. Parsons [etc.]
> 
> In some cases, I'm reasonably certain that the abbreviation 
> is transcribed 
> accurately from the title page.  However, I'm not sure that 
> this is always 
> the case, or whether 2.16D and E are showing conventional cataloger 
> practice to abbreviate forenames.
> 
> First question, do any of these examples in AACR2 need to be 
> revised in the 
> light of the deletion of 1.4D4?  Is it sufficient to agree that the 
> forename initials have been transcribed?  Or should there be 
> more examples 
> with full forenames to make it more clear that full 
> transcription is required?
> 
> Second -- since this is the DCRB revision list -- are the 
> DCRM rules (all 
> formats, I suppose) consistent with the basic AACR rules on 
> transcribing 
> publisher information?; are the DCRM rules clear on what can 
> be omitted or 
> abbreviated and whether/how such omissions or abbreviations should 
> indicated in the description?
> 
> 	John Attig
> 
>