[DCRB-L] WG-3 Machine Press

[Laurence Creider]

Sorry to be late in submitting this.  I misplaced my printout of Manon's
paper with my annotations and had to reconstruct them.  
	Larry

I found Manon's paper to be quite thought-provoking and liked it very
much.  

Comments on specific points are:
2B4.   Frankly, I don't like adding a word indicating "ed." or "state" or
"print."  I would prefer to transcribe what is present and adding such
designations only when the term to be used is very clear from the book
itself.   In other words, reverse the rule and the "in case of doubt"
provision.

I am of two minds about the proposed insertion in the first paragraph of
4, of statements relating to the stereotyper and electrotyper.  If we
adopt the proposal of recording in the 260 $b what is on the t.p.
regardless of function, then recording stereotyper and electrotyper when
they appear on the t.p. makes sense.  If we decide to follow the rest of
the cataloging world and separate publishing and manufacturing functions
when the item clearly does so, then I would be in favor of moving this
material to 260$e and $f.  This means that I would suggest that the 2nd
example recommended for 4C have the Stereotyper statement recorded either
in a note or in a $e,$f of the 260 field.  I still worry about excessively
long 260 fields and the implications for duplicate records, clustering
records and shared cataloging.

4D on copyright.  Yes, I think we should explain the significance of the
pre-1870 rule and find out its equivalents for other countries.

4D2.  For reasons that I have never completely understood, the LCRI
concerning copyright dates says to record them for nonbook materials only.
As a result, one cannot record this sort of situation when using
AACR2/rev, nor can one follow OCLC standards and do it.  What do we do
about this for libraries cataloging on OCLC?

My next point does not directly relate to the 19th century question, but I
bring it up here because Manon's draft does.  The Justification for this
change refers to 0D and the "first three areas."  I found this confusing
because Publication, etc. area is generally called Area 4 (note or rule
numbering).  Area 3 is not used for rare monographs, but would be used for
rare serials and cartographic materials.  However, 0D does not list the
Materials Characteristics area, so that its third area is the Publication,
etc. area.  Perhaps we need to revise this as well and speak of the first
four areas?      

4E.  The recommendation concerning impressions in the date area refers to
the LCRI for 1.0 and its relation to the question of cataloging editions
and impressions.  However, AACR2 and the LCRIs do allow one to record the
date of a printing in the record for an edition.  What is one recording
here, the date of publication of the edition or the impression?  This rule
seems contrary to the notion that we create new records for printings
rather than only for editions.  If we are cataloging printings, then
perhaps the proposed example should be "1979, c1962?"  When would one have
a situation like 1962 (1979 impression [and wouldn't it more likely say
1979 printing])?

5B5  on advertisements.  Sometimes advertisements can provide evidence for
dating a printing (copyright 1877, but the advertisements refer to books
published by the firm in 1885).  Should they be accounted for in such
cases.   Not being an expert in 19th century books, can I ask if the
copies from the same printing might be bound with different advertising
matter?  If not, then perhaps we might consider allowing the
advertisements to be mentioned when printings rather than editions are
being cataloged?

5B9.  The LCRI that permits unnumbered plates to be disregarded was
adopted simply to save time for catalogers of modern materials.  I do not
think it should be an option for DCRB.

5C.  I think that references to particular techniques of illustrations
should be put in the notes area, not in the physical description area.
The examples posed raise the issues both of categorization of processes
(some reference books and scholars might not differentiate two processes
another would) and cataloger competence.  Frankly, I would even be in
favor of removing this option from the physical description area (Problems
and lacunae!).  

Area 6.  Very nicely done!  I do think that we need this section because
the rules for recording series in AACR2 and, more importantly, the LCRIs
are based on serials cataloging and call for leaving out a great deal of
information we would want to record.  
	One slight problem is that there are occasions where it is hard
for a non-expert such as myself to tell whether a series is a binder's
title for an individual customer or whether the series on the binding has
been so issued by the publisher.  This is particularly the case when one
is working in a library without extensive collections or reference tools.  
Maybe we could add an, "if in doubt" clause to the fourth paragraph in
6A2?

Area 8, I think that recording ISSNs for series is best left as an option.
Many, if not most, institutions do not record it for modern materials,
even when it appears on an item.  On the other hand, ISSNs should be in
serial records when available and so should ISBNs  for monographs when
they are present.  Surely someone is going to want to use DCRB to describe
a book with an ISBN.  Query, should the predecessor SBN be recorded?  

For the Glossary, I would suggest reference to the ALA Glossary (various
editions) as well.  The work may not have much weight with rare book
catalogers, but it will be present in almost all libraries and will
consider terms appropriate for 19th and 20th century books.

The following statement is not directed so much at Manon's paper, which I
found very interesting and useful, but at our general deliberations.  
What I found missing was a justification for why the particular
recommendations might be considered essential in a bibliographic record.  
Which of these recommendations is essential for identification of a
particular edition (or impression)?  We want to make sure that we are not
recording data simply because we can.  If we don't ask, "Is this rule
necessary?" the records will end up as heaps of bibliographic data that,
to be sure, can be usefully mined as scholars. But the records will not
enable the user to accomplish the primary objectives of the catalog, to
identify which editions (or impressions) of a particular work are present
in the library and which works by an author are available.


Laurence S. Creider
Head, General Cataloging Unit
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 505-646-4707
Fax: 505-646-7477
lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu