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

[Deborah J. Leslie]

There was some Bib Standards discussion about this a few years ago, and if I'm remembering correctly, there was a consensus to change DCRB so that an edition statement is transcribed without abbreviation if it is taken from anywhere within the item being cataloged. Abbreviation allowed only if an edition is supplied from a reference or other outside source. 

--DJL

p.s. Bob, you're right that the current 2.15A formulation is nonsensical.

___________________________
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. 
Head of Cataloging
Folger Shakespeare Library
201 East Capitol St., S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003
202.675-0369 (p)
202.675-0328 (f)
djleslie at folger.edu
www.folger.edu


-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Maxwell [mailto:robert_maxwell at byu.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 3:43 PM
To: dcrb-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: [DCRB-L] FW: Consistency TF: Area 2 analysis -- 2nd draft


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