[DCRB-L] Re: WG 5: Problems draft (fwd)

[Laurence Creider]

Folks,
	Here are some comments about the draft available at
http://www.folger.edu/bsc/dcrb/problems20021218.doc that I sent to
Deborah earlier.  She suggested that I might forward them to the list.
	Larry

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

---------- Forwarded message ----------

I had a chance to work through the list while in California visiting my
father and agree with most of what Deborah says.  Here are some comments
on some of her suggestions and a few additional topics we might consider.

1B1  This raises some interesting questions:
a) What do "separable" or "grammatically linked" (1B6) mean?  Genitive
constructions tend to be considered inseparable while many prepositional
phrases are treated as separable, especially those indicating agency.  How
about relative clauses and absolute constructions?  Does "separability"
depend on the characteristics of a given language?  I have often wondered
about this issue in regards to Latin texts (cf the examples in 1G4 and
the second example in 1G10).
b) The proposed change disagrees with ISBD(A) rev., as do several others.
Does this matter to us?  My impression of the ISBD is that either it
borrows a good deal from, including examples, from BDRB/DCRB or
vice-versa.  Does anyone know the primary direction of influence?  It
would make a difference in how eagerly we might go about making some of
these changes.
c) If we change this rule, should we also change 1B6?

1G6.  If we keep this, shouldn't we specify a note on any transposition?

1G8.  We transcribe such initials if they are part of a genitive
construction at the start of a title.  Is this an inconsistency to worry
about?  I generally retain such additions under provision b) anyway.

1G9.  I agree this has no place in early books, but we might want to keep
the rule for later imprints.

1G11.  The problem with the notion "that in case of doubt, treat ... as
part of the statement of responsibility" is that the phrase cannot be
searched as part of the title.  This is a problem for short titles such as
those given in the examples.  Maybe drop that last sentence in the rule?

2B1.  I like the proposal; IIRC it is one of those places where we would
be diverging from ISBD(A).

2C1.  Why is a statement that doesn't name a person or corporate body not
considered a statement of responsibility for an edition statement is
considered a SoR in the title area (1G12)?

4B3.  How about merely adding some examples?  Otherwise, we could end up
with Berolini [Berlin]!  (Please don't tell me this would _never_ happen;
cataloger's judgment is sometimes not exercised) Who is the audience for
the record?

4C2.  Can we point to cases where this is important?  Otherwise, why are
we doing it?

4C6.  Here, here.  I don't know if anyone else has the problem, but I have
never been sure whether the provision that allows you to say [and 9
others] counts firms/partnerships or names.  A silly matter, but I can
get rather confused with early 18th century British imprints.  I would
love to see this addressed.  Do we know of cases where editions or at
least issues would be distinguished by this provision?

4D2. Copyright.  Our practice here differs from the LCRI for printed books
(they are the only format for which one does not record a different
copyright date).  Does it matter?  

5B6. 1 v (various pagings).  I can think of some cases where one would
want to banish 6 or 7 sequences to a note.  Maybe the option could be
accompanied by the words, "As a last resort?" :)

5B7 par. 2.  There are some cases where there are multiple duplications of
pagination and corresponding omisions of page numbers.  Sometimes the
last numbered page is "correct" and sometimes it isn't.  In such cases, a
note might be better.

5B3.  What about unnumbered blank leaves that are not closely associated
with either of two sequences they lie between?

5B17.  I think the rules need to be clearer about when "physical" and
"bibliographical" volumes can be distinguished for books sold unbound.  
Obviously, when the signatures are continuous, one can assume that Vol. 2
is a bibliographic volume.  However, when each volume has separate
signatures and special t.p. it is much harder to sort out the intention.  
I'm not expressing this well, but Deborah knows what I mean.  We discussed
this years ago.

Larry