[DCRB-L] Revision of DCRB

[J.J. Hall]

I have joined this discussion list only recently, and have not been able
to read the earlier messages, so some of the following points may have
been covered in messages I have not seen; in which case I apologise.

I should like to comment on the following DCRB rules:

0C2, choice between title-pages: proposed additional rule (Manon
Theroux's proposal on "Description of machine-press materials")

"If the publication is in one volume and the chief difference between
the two title-pages is that one is printed on a publisher's binding or
wrapper and the other is not, choose whichever source provides the most
recent information."

If the publication is simply the reissue of old sheets in a new wrapper
or binding, and the title is unchanged, is there not a strong case for
choosing the original title-page, and giving information from the
wrapper/binding in a note (or, if the new information is confined to the
publication etc. area, giving it as an addition to the imprint, i.e.
adapting DCRB 4E and AACR2 1.4F4)?

0C3, choice of title-page substitute. Should not some revision of this
rule be considered? The sentence "If different titles, or differing
forms of the same title, appear within the publication, select one as
the title proper and use its source as the title page substitute" is
unhelpful, since it gives no reason for preferring one title rather than
another.

0H, letter-forms ligatures and contractions. Is there a strong reason
why ligatures and contractions should not be transcribed when it is
possible to do so? (I am thinking especially of the ligatures of ae and
oe, but there are others which can be transcribed, e.g. early
contractions which consist of a macron over a letter.) Past practice
was, I think, generally to reproduce them, there are numerous instances
at least of the ae ligature is ESTC records, and ISBD(A), 1991, says
(0.6) "ligatures ... may be transcribed in their current form when the
contemporary form is not available" - implying that, if the contemporary
form is available, it should be transcribed.

About the transcription of ijuv I agree with Brian Hillyard's message of
6 February.

4A2 and 4C6, publication etc. area: combining statements belonging to a
single element (in practice, the publisher element) which appear in
different sources in the publication.

I agree with the view that this should be avoided, and that information
about publisher, printer, etc., not taken from the main source for this
element should be given in a note (or, if it relates to the manufacture
of the item, in field 260 subfields e and f).

5B17, publications in more than one physical unit. The rule speaks of
"the number of physical units in which a publication is actually
issued": this concept seems doubtfully applicable in the hand-press
period, when publishers commonly distributed books in sheets, leaving
the bookseller or purchaser to arrange about binding (cf. Gaskell, New
introduction, p. 146-7). Should this rule be revised?

John Hall
Rare Books Department,
Cambridge University Library,
West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DR,
England

e-mail: jjh10 at cam.ac.uk