[DCRB-L] FW: Consistency TF: Area 2 analysis -- 2nd draft

[Jane Gillis]

I thought I had seen a comment on the list that, perhaps,  the rules for 
Early Printed Monographs (2.12-1.18) should be deleted from AACR2 and that, 
instead, there should be a guide to DCRM(B).  At this point I can't find it.

Would it be easier in the long run to delete the rules for Early Printed 
Monographs and instead in the various formats, give directions to the 
specific DCRM rules?

Jane

At 01:42 PM 11/13/2002 -0700, Robert Maxwell wrote:
>I am forwarding a message that went out to a task force charged with 
>checking AACR2 for internal consistency, chaired by John Attig. The group 
>is actively making rule change proposals based on its findings. The 
>message, from Bob Ewald, regards one of the "Early Printed Monographs" 
>rules in AACR2, 2.15. You will see that it is being suggested that 2.15B 
>be moved to somewhere in 1.2, since it is applicable to all AACR2 
>cataloging, not just early printed monographs. Bob Ewald also points out 
>some problems with 2.15A and suggests that it be modified to conform to 
>DCRB 2B1.
>
>I think the dcrb-l group is likely to agree with this, but I would like to 
>hear a bit of discussion. Since John is on this list I assume he will be 
>listening in and either he or I can forward discussion to the task group 
>(John, instructions, please!)
>
>The specific queries I have are:
>
>1. Do you think the following (Bob Ewald's suggestions) is a good idea?
>
>2. Before proposing any changes to 2.15A, is DCRB 2B1 likely to remain as 
>it is when it becomes DCRM? Specifically, are we likely to continue to 
>allow abbreviation in edition statements taken from sources other than the 
>title page or are we likely to insist on exact transcription?
>
>As AACR2 2.15A stands it seems to be stricter than DCRB 2B1.
>
>2.15A says: In general, give an edition statement as it is found in the 
>item. Otherwise, give standard abbreviations and arabic numberals in place 
>of words as instructed in 1.2B.
>
>Actually, on reading this rule I don't have any idea exactly WHAT is 
>wanted-- "In general do this, but otherwise do that" means what?
>
>Note that scrutiny is being given at this very moment to the Early Printed 
>Monographs rules in AACR2; I therefore reiterate that the revision of DCRB 
>does need to keep an eye on these as it goes about its work with one 
>possible outcome of suggesting rule revisions to AACR.
>
>Bob
>
>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: Robert B Ewald [mailto:rewa at loc.gov]
>Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 1:52 PM
>To: robert_maxwell at byu.edu; emangan at earthlink.net; chopey at hawaii.edu; 
>hostage at law.harvard.edu; Bruce C Johnson; Carroll N. Davis; 
>weitzj at oclc.org; whitacrc at oclc.org; jca at psulias.psu.edu; 
>nlorimer at stanford.edu; fletcher at tulane.edu; dmcgarry at ucla.edu; 
>steven.arakawa at yale.edu
>Cc: Barbara B Tillett
>Subject: Re: Consistency TF: Area 2 analysis -- 2nd draft
>
>
>John and Group:
>
>I am responding specifically to John's question regarding rule 2.15B. I 
>will comment on the other aspects of Area 2 later.
>
>I agree that 2.15B should be moved to 1.2B. This would bring AACR2 into 
>harmony with the ISBDs and with _Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Books_ 
>(DCRB). The new rule in 1.2B would be a needed counterpart to existing 
>AACR2 rule 1.1F13. (FYI: ISBD(M) uses a mainstream example to illustrate 
>the situation: "The compact edition of the Oxford English dictionary.")
>
>But there is a problem with existing rule 2.15A. I am just documenting the 
>problem for future action.
>
>The AACR2 provisions for rules 2.12-2.18F came from a very early draft of 
>the 1980 ISBD(A). The final ISBD(A) provisions for 2.15A differ.
>
>2.15A: In general, give an edition statement as it is found in the item. 
>Otherwise, give standard abbreviations and arabic numerals in place of 
>words as instructed in 1.2B. [Examples:] Nunc primum in lucem aedita; 
>Editio secunda auctior et correctior; Cinquième édition   or   5e éd.
>
>1980 (A): The edition statement is given in the terms used in the 
>publication. The exact wording is given when the edition statement is 
>taken from the title-page or title-page substitute. When the edition 
>statement is taken from any other source, standard abbreviations may be 
>used and numbers may be given as arabic numerals.
>
>1991 (A): The edition statement is transcribed in the terms in which it 
>appears in the publication. The exact wording is given when the edition 
>statement is taken from a prescribed source of information. (Note: the 
>prescribed source for the edition area is the title page.) When the 
>edition statement is taken from any other source, standard abbreviations 
>may be used and arabic numerals are substituted for other numerals or 
>spelled out numbers. When the edition statement is not taken from the 
>title-page, the source of the statement is given in area 7.
>
>1991 DCRB: Transcribe the statement relating to an edition of a 
>publication in the terms in which it appears. Give the exact wording if 
>the edition statement is taken from the title page. If it is taken from 
>any other source, standard abbreviations and arabic numerals may be given 
>in place of words. If the edition statement, or any part of the edition 
>area, is taken from elsewhere than the title page, indicate its source in 
>the note area.
>
>Since the existing 2.15A is not in accord with any standard, I suggest 
>that 2.15A be (eventually) revised to agree with DCRB.
>
>Bob Ewald

  Jane Gillis | Rare Book Cataloger| Sterling Memorial Library
  Yale University | New Haven CT 06520
  (203)432-8383 (voice) | (203)432-7231 (fax) | jane.gillis at yale.edu