[DCRB-L] WG3

[Jane Gillis]

Manon has done a superb job in her position paper on Machine Press 
Cataloging.  I do have a few comments/questions.  There is one problem--I 
cannot copy and paste text from the Adobe Acrobat document.

1.  On p. 2, half way through:

whether or not the current instruction to treat printers and publishers as 
interchangeable in the imprint area is to be observed for bothearly and 
modern materials ...

The following is from ISBD(A).  Do we want to consider this?  In many ways 
it does make sense.  I think this would have to be done for all 
publications and not just after a certain date.

4.5 Place of printing
&
4.6 Name of printer
4.5.1 The place of printing and the name of the printer are given following 
the date, & 4.6.1 when they appear in the publication, but not in the first 
preferred prescribed source of information for the place of publication, 
etc., or name of publisher, etc., elements, or when they do not appear in 
the publication and are known and considered important by the bibliographic 
agency.
4.5.2 The place(s) of printing and the name(s) of printer(s) are given in 
the same way & 4.6.2 as the principal place(s) of publication, etc., and 
name of publisher, etc.
e.g.
A Paris : chez Nyon l'aîné, 1781 ([Paris] : de l'imprimerie de la veuve 
Thiboust)
Note: Printer named in colophon
Francofurti : prostat apud Ionam Rosarn, 1616 ([Frankfurt : Abraham Scultetus])
Editorial comment: Printer not named in the publication
[Parrhisiis] : venales inveniuntur in vico sancti Iacobi apud Leonem 
Argenteum [Johannem Petit], 1508 (Parrhisiis : impressae in Bellovisu 
[apud] Johannem Marchant)
Note: Petit's name, the place, date and the statement of printing are taken 
from the colophon
Venundatur Parrhisiis : in vico sancti Iacobi sub Leone Argenteo, Jehan 
Petit, [ca. 1509] ([Paris : Jean Marchant])
Note: The last leaf bears the device of the printer.
Petit's name appears in a device on the title-page

--------------------

2. Multiple edition statements

If we give all printing statements in the 250, what do we do about the 
"historical" type of printing statements that often appear?

Example 1 (Made up)
First published in London by Faber and Faber in 1932
First American edition
First printing 1933; second printing July 1934; third printing December 1934

Would we give both the "First American edition" and the "third printing 
December 1934" in the 250 and then give other information in a note?  Would 
it be better to give the edition statement in the 250 and the printing 
information in a note?

------------------------

3.  In general, where Manon has used the phrase "if desired", would it be 
better to give a rule, to either do or don't do,  but give the other as an 
option.

Example:
"Do not transcribe pre 1870 copyright dates.  Optionally, add this 
information in a note."

Jane

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20030106/d391fa2b/attachment.htm