[DCRB-L] DCRM(B) series area

[Richard Noble]

A personal inquiry from Jerry Wager, and Jane Gillis's posting to autocat, 
prompt the following:

I overheard much of the conversation about 12.1 and mandated quasi-accuracy 
(i.e. silent correction) in transcription into the 440 field. This is 
pretty nearly ("pretty nerdy" says wife Robyn looking over my shoulder) a 
hill to die on: exact transcription is the core (nay, minimum) activity of 
DCRB/DCRM(B). Unfortunately BDRB/DCRB had nothing to say about series, what 
with the exclusive emphasis on "early printed monographs". DCRB 6 simply 
refers the cataloguer to AACR2, a bit of a throwaway.

I imagine we want to avoid an awkward (and intellectually indefensible) 
inconsistency in the treatment of this one portion of transcribed data. We 
have backing in ISBD(A), which, though it too refers the cataloguer to 
other rules--ISBD(S)--"for an understanding of the elements pertaining to 
the area", nevertheless prescribes transcription consistent with the rest 
of the record:

"6.1.1  The title proper of the series or sub-series corresponds to the 
title proper in the bibliographic description of the series or sub-series 
when it is described as a serial according to the provisions of area 1 of 
ISBD(S). The provisions of area 1 in ISBD(A) are applied to the 
transcription of the data selected for the title proper of the series."

That's pretty straightforward. It's hardly radical to suggest that in this, 
as in other respects, DCRM(B) ought at last to follow its precursors in 
attempting to conform as closely as possible to ISBD(A). The 490/8XX 
complex functions perfectly well for the purpose; indeed, it will often be 
necessary anyway, given the grievous complexity that obtained at the birth 
of the series (it's all very simple nowadays, of course).


Post-script (what oft was thought, and here again's expressed): The 
assumption behind DCRB area 6 is a bit unfortunate. There was never any 
historically valid reason to limit the rules to the putative hand press 
period (a rather foggy notion), since scholarly/historical/artifactual 
treatment of all printed books depends on the same attention to the 
physical construction of the object, the genetics of its printed surfaces, 
and the bibliographical relationships that are ascertained from such 
evidence. At this point in the history of the printed codex, the 
distinction between hand-press and machine-press printing seems 
increasingly jejune--merely a way of avoiding the complexities introduced, 
gradually, by way of cloned and reusable printing surfaces, machine 
composition, publisher bindings and binding issues, etc. etc., which if 
anything require even greater attention to the details of subtler 
variation. One can be easily deceived by how much more closely, but 
deceptively, C19and C20 books may resemble each other. Of course, I'm 
preaching to the choir, since the BSC has made serious progress towards 
overcoming the false distinction, but also facing the peculiar problems 
involved in cataloging "later printed monographs". The series area is 
certainly a peculiar problem.


RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOK CATALOGUER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-2093 : RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU