[DCRB-L] WG3: Machine press

[Stephen Skuce]

Let me begin by apologizing for taking so long to comment on what we all 
agree is a superb document by Manon.  Despite my gray hairs, I am still 
relatively new to this, and I admit I felt hesitant to comment at all, at 
least until all the heavy hitters had had time to weigh in.  Then too, 
Manon's draft is so strong that even through several readings, it seemed as 
if nearly all that was left to do was the hashing out, in a live 
give-and-take conference setting, of the questions and issues she 
identified so insightfully.

That said, Manon's plea for public comment from attendees has come through 
loud and clear.  I only hope that most of what follows isn't so painfully 
obvious to everyone that CPUs are sent crashing to the floor in offices 
everywhere.

0D. Prescribed sources of information

Recommendation:

Insert text in the penultimate paragraph:
In all cases in which data for the first three areas, or the series area, 
are taken from elsewhere than the title page, make a note to indicate the 
source of the data.
------> This is very tricky, as others have pointed out.  But for a couple 
of reasons, I'd prefer not to deviate from AACR2 on this one.
         Unfortunately this issue, like many others the machine-press group 
must confront,  is balled up with the entire question of the intrinsic 
differences (if any) between hand press and machine press books themselves, 
and whether certain important characteristics of HP books, which so 
fundamentally informed the creation of DCRB, are shared absolutely by MP 
books.  It is worth restating in this regard that DCRB says, in essence, 
nothing at all about series, precisely because of its explicit, and in this 
instance exclusive, concern with "early printed monographs" (DCRB, p. 53, 
"6. Series area.")
         If monographic series are indeed more characteristic of books from 
19c on (and my experience with 17-19c sci-tech collections tells me they 
definitely are), then there may be a few reasons to treat this very 
specific aspect of MP books as the DCRM "exception" it is.  Why try to 
shoehorn an almost exclusively post-1800 characteristic into a pre-1800 
schema?  We have obvious reasons to rely on the authority of the title page 
for most areas of the description.  But it seems to me that the emergence 
of the monographic series was accompanied, if not announced, by the 
emergence of the series title page.  There were few-to-no series title 
pages in the HP period, not because the practice was to publish series 
without series title pages, but because the practice was not to publish 
series at all.  Although series could in theory have become ubiquitous 
before the MP period, the fact is that they did not.  But this isn't even 
about what type of press they were printed on: it's about content, and the 
presentation of information relating to that content.
         So do we want to insist that publications that characteristically 
identify themselves in a very particular way -- via a series title page -- 
must be described according to rules that ignore that characteristic?  What 
we are aiming for, of course, throughout DCRM is consistency.  But as 
strange as it may seem to us to read "Series statement from title page," I 
think it is less strange than "Series statement from series title 
page."  And presumably, if we used the series t.p. as our prescribed 
source, we'd end up making fewer notes altogether, if series title pages 
are as common as I think they are.
         I wouldn't worry too much about user confusion: users of a typical 
university catalog may note that DCRM records are different in some ways 
from other records, but they are consistently so.  Notes about sources of 
information, for example, are common.  For users of special, more 
DCRM-intensive catalogs, well, presumably they see relatively few records 
for MP materials as it is, and the introduction of records with a 
consistent quirk -- occasionally citing the t.p. as series source -- 
shouldn't jar too much.  We may need to educate such (already engaged) 
users, who are apparently paying very close attention to our records, but 
that seems do-able; and there are some changes coming to their catalogs in 
any case, whether they like it or not, elsewhere in these rules.
         An important thing to remember in this instance is that we are not 
talking about changing an existing rule:  DCRB has failed to provide rules 
for series heretofore.  What we are doing is introducing a new set of rules 
into DCRM, and I think there are strong arguments for taking the 
opportunity to bring this area of the description into alignment with most 
of the materials it will be used to describe.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
4. Publication, Etc., Area

------> There's lots here to chew on, and again, some in-person tussles 
will be best for resolving the questions Manon identifies.  I do agree with 
Richard Noble's comments on 260 subfields e, f, and g, and on prominence 
(typography, position, etc.) guiding us in their use.  We will likely end 
up with a more complicated document, but it seems necessary and worth 
it.  A c17 text with a printer and 6 booksellers listed on its title page 
seems to me to be saying something very different from a c19 text with a 
large commercial publisher named on the t.p., and a stereotyper noted in 
miniscule type on the t.p. verso.
         In any case, DCRB is currently pretty bipolar on this: When "4E. 
Date of impression" appears at the end of the chapter, it seems to come out 
of left field.
------> Thank you Manon for 4A2 and especially 4A3, and I second the 
suggestion that the name of 4A3 be changed to "Form and order of elements."
------> 4D2 footnote:  As it stands, DCRB instructs the cataloger to 
consider dates in their relation to the enactment of uniform copyright 
legislation worldwide, and then drops the subject.  While the cataloging 
rules cannot be all things to all people, additional information on such 
dates, and the rationale behind them, would indeed be welcome.

4E. Date of impression

         ... [Second] Recommendation:

Revise text in final sentence:
In the above cases, the source of the date of impression and any 
explanations may should be given in the note area if useful.
------> I'd suggest an addition to Manon's changed text, as follows:
         In the above cases, the source of the date of impression (if other 
than the title page), and any explanations, should be given in the note area.

6. Series area

Recommendation: ...

6.A2. Sources of information ...

[4th paragraph]:
Do not consider a cover to be a prescribed source unless it is forms part 
of a publisher's binding or wrapper.
------> May I suggest a change to: Do not consider a cover to be a 
prescribed source unless it is known to be part of a publisher's binding or 
wrapper.

6F. Series numbering

------> Manon is right on the money regarding transcription of 
numbering.  The question of ISSNs brings us back to questions about the 
"source of information," to say nothing of transposition.  AACR2 is 
obviously riddled with problems here.  I think we should seriously question 
the way AACR2 packs area 6, and consider unpacking it.

Stephen

| Stephen Skuce  |  Rare Books Cataloging Librarian
| MIT Libraries  |  Building 14E-210B  |  617.253.0654  |  skuce at mit.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20030219/73f94618/attachment.htm