[DCRB-L] Names of publishers

[John Attig]

Thank you for the usual definitive reply.  I suspected that this was true.

My only remaining question is whether it would be beneficial to change some 
of the examples to ones with full forenames so that there is not a 
misleading impression that one can abbreviate?  I don't feel strongly about 
this, but would be willing to make such a proposal.

I could also comment on the status of the rare book rules in Chapter 2.  I 
agree that it is not necessary that these conform to DCRM(B).  It would be 
nice, however, if there were no major contradictions.  It might be worth 
comparing the two at some point to see what differences exist and (if 
appropriate) suggest changes to AACR chapter 2.

An alternative also suggests itself:  the Joint Steering Committee is 
showing itself more open to letting standards external to AACR take care of 
certain areas.  When the special rules in Chapter 2 were written, there was 
no such external standard for rare books (and such materials had been 
covered in previous rules).  DCRB/DCRM has become a mature standard, widely 
accepted within the Anglo-American cataloguing community; JSC might be 
interested in replacing rules 2.12-18 with a reference to DCRM.  In either 
case, this is a task to take up after the revision of DCRB is finished.

         John Attig

At 09:52 AM 11/7/2002, Richard Noble wrote:
>The rule concerning abbreviation ("give the name ... in the shortest form 
>in which it can be understood and identified internationally") is 1.4D2, 
>which stands. The deleted 1.4D4 was "If the name ... appears in a 
>recognizable form in the title and statement of responsibility area, give 
>it in the publication, distribution, etc., area in the shortest possible 
>form"--i.e. "The Association", "The Museum"; i.e. it was an exception to 
>1.4D2. The corresponding LCRI had authorized disregard of the rule, which 
>is inappropriate in a properly indexed database; and in 2002 we were 
>finally and definitively put out of its misery.
>
>The examples in AACR2 2.16D,E are indeed transcribed as they appear, as 
>the rule states, and in this respect nothing has changed. (I think they're 
>intended to show that one neither contracts nor expands the name.) Old 
>1.4D4 had nothing to do with it; one could infer from the absence of 
>anything corresponding to it that it was not applicable in the rare book 
>context. (DRCB 4C2 likewise tells us to transcribe the name "as it 
>appears", i.e. without abbreviation or other shortening, and goes on to 
>permit inclusion of imprint matter that 2.16D required to be omitted.)