[DCRM-L] Comments on DCRM(B) beta

[Hillyard, Brian]

I never seem to get to the end of working through everybody else's comments.
In the meantime here are some comments of my own, with apologies if they
have been anticipated by others.

Brian

********************************************
Dr Brian Hillyard
Rare Book Collections Manager, National Library of Scotland
George IV Bridge, Edinburgh, EH1 1EW
b.hillyard at nls.uk: 0131-226 4531 (voice): 0131-466 2807 (fax)


0B2 David Woodruff comments that a "perfect copy" could be hard to find.
Sometimes there are only imperfect copies, with some being less imperfect
than others.  There are also instances of all copies being imperfect but at
different points, permitting the hypothetical reconstruction of a perfect
copy.  Many cataloguers will not have to deal with such cases, but the
wording of the rules should cover them.  For me this points to wording along
the lines of "a copy without the imperfection(s) or less imperfect".

0F3  Retain normal spacing when transcribing words divided between lines
without a hyphen.]  David asked about the meaning of this.  I don't think
there is any doubt about the meaning, that a word divided between two lines
without a hyphen is transcribed as a single word and not two words (if words
are defined by spaces). Is the following any clearer?  "When a word is
divided between the end of one line and the beginning of the next,
transcribe it as a single word ignoring the line-break.  If a hyphen has
been used to divide the word, do not transcribe the hyphen; if the function
of the hyphen is in doubt, transcribe it."

0H In the publication, the body of the text in roman type shows consistent
use of "v" for vowels or consonants in initial position and "u" for vowels
or consonants  elsewhere, e.g., "ville", "vn", conuersation" and "tout".]  I
think I would now want to add an example to cover a final letter: e.g.
"entendu", "ou" or "au" (these are actual examples from this same Plutarch
book)

0J2 special marks of contraction]  in the discussion whether we should say
(as DCRB) that these are special marks retained from the manuscript
tradition, I would comment that we wouldn't wish to imply that if these
marks are not retained from the manuscript tradition (can we be certain that
this is an empty category?), they are to be treated differently; nor would
we wish to make cataloguers check whether or not marks of contraction are
from the manuscript tradition.

2B1  Note: "First American edition published 1901. Revised edition published
1904." - T.p. verso]   Do we know  where this example comes from?  I collect
all the different printings of the early World Classics volumes published by
Grant Richards in this same decade and in this kind of formula on the t.p.
verso the second part usually relates to the book in hand and so isn't an
"earlier statement"

4 introduction] correct 4B dis<t>ribution

4A5  If possible, transcribe the original details in the note area.]  It
would be possible (but sometimes unacceptable) to remove the label.  "Where
the original details are legible, transcribe them in the note area."?

4A6 If the wording, layout, or typography privileges a manufacturer
statement ...  If the wording, layout, or typography privileges a publisher
or distributor statement ...]  In place of "privileges" may we consider
re-using the phrase already used, "gives prominence to"?  "privilege" as a
verb is not a common usage and so a bit of an obstacle here.

4B10  supply the name appropriate to the date of publication if possible ]
"if known"?

4C2, 4C6 (perhaps others) referring to "the publisher".  As the second
sentence of DCRB 4, "Thus the words "place of publication" and "publisher"
refer equally to the location and name of a publisher, distributor, or
printer, unless otherwise indicated", has now been dropped, these subsequent
rules will need more careful phrasing.  For example, it is no longer safe
for 4C2 and 4C6 to refer to publishers alone: in the new DCRM(B) context
these rules could be interpreted not to apply to any names not meeting the
definition of a publisher.

5B3  Consider that numbered sequences include unnumbered pages or leaves
falling logically within the sequence, generally counting back from the
recorded number to 1.  [2], 40 p. etc.]  I've never queried this before but
I believe that if this book had (e.g.) seven unnumbered pages at the
beginning and the verso of the fourth leaf was numbered "6", I would
describe it as [7], 6-40 p. and I think this is fairly common ESTC practice.
At the beginning of a book where there may be things like errata leaves and
dedication leaves present in some issues but not others, it is not always
clear what original intentions were, and in these circumstances it is easier
- and makes for a safer "match" - to describe what you see with the minimum
of interpretation.  Moreover, I fully support our handling of the xii,13-176
and xii,[1],14-176 examples in 5B6, and I think the [2], 40 p. example sits
a little unhappily with that.  I propose that in 5B3 after the above example
we insert some new text to the effect "In case of doubt prefer to record
this as [4], 3-40 p."

5B7  Local note: LC copy: Several leaves are cancels; leaves page-numbered
105-106 and 539-540 are cancellanda ...] This isn't an example of a good
note.  The words "Several leaves are cancels" do not make for a clear
concise note since they add nothing (but make you question that), for surely
they are not referring to cancels other than those then specified?
Moreover, this is a case where there should be a general note, "In some/all
copies leaves 105/106 and 539/540 are cancels" (preferably specifying means
of identification), and then a local note, "LC copy: the cancellanda 105/106
and 539/540 are uncancelled, and the corresponding cancellantia are between
p.742 and p.743".

5B7  When the number of the last numbered page, leaf or column of a sequence
does not indicate the correct number of pages ... ]  If we invert the order
of the examples "232, 221-252 p." and "252 [i.e. 264] p." (which I fully
support), it would be better to invert the order in the preceding
instructions too.  In the examples there is an unnecessary inconsistency in
"Page numbers 221-232 are repeated in pagination" and "Numbers 221-232 are
repeated in pagination".

5B9  Treat illustrated title pages as plates, unless they are integral to
textual gatherings (see 5C1).]  Focusing on changes (as opposed to
additions) this has a claim to be the biggest single change between DCRB and
DCRM(B).  I fully appreciate the point about treating plates outside
gatherings in a consistent way but I don't think that consistency is a
knock-down argument [e.g. it is inconsistent with other recording of
pagination to record a broadside or other sheet printed on one side,
numbered, as "1 sheet (1 p.)" rather than "1 sheet (1, [1] p.)" with a note
saying that one side is blank - after all, we use [1] for a blank page at
the end of a sequence].  If there is such a thing as an engraved title leaf
that contains the only title page, would we not sometimes have records with
a statement of extent reading "328 p., [1] leaf of plates" where that [1]
leaf of plates is the source of the title, edition statement, and imprint?
Would that be OK?   I have re-read Bowers on all this, but I would comment
(1) as influenced the change of name from BDRB to DCRB, we are not engaged
in bibliographical description, and (2) even Bowers says (p.200) "On
practical grounds, however, there is some reason to differentiate engraved
title-leaves, as well as frontispiece portraits or vignettes, from the
ordinary plate in the body of the book" and "Nevertheless, it must be
admitted that there is a certain convenience in associating an engraved
title or prefixed portrait more directly with the printed sheets and in the
collational formula".  Bowers is concerned with collational formulae and I'm
not citing him directly in support of not treating engraved title pages as
plates: the point is rather that he does provide evidence for a view of
engraved title leaves as standing slightly apart from "normal" leaves of
plates.

5B20  In this position the new text follows the relevant example.  Could the
text be changed slightly (e.g. "In the case of a publication containing
leaves or pages of plates, do not ...") and placed  after the text in 5B19?

5D1 "If desired, give the format also for later publications"]  Delete this
sentence?  In DCRB this very much relates to the preceding "For publications
issued before 1801" and I don't think it can stand in the revised text since
a hand-press publication can be of any date.

7C7 Alternatively, give the entire statement of limitation and the copy
number in a local note.]  Is there a strong view that this needs to be
allowed?  Suppose that the special edition is 2 cm higher than the normal
edition: we would not want to separate the height in the general data from
the statement of limitation in the local data.  Would we agree that in such
a case this alternative should not be used?  

7C9 in the fifth example from the end, the "and" has slipped into
superscript, and in the fifth example above that, the "4" needs to be
superscript.

7C14  Begin each note with the word "References" and a colon.]  I still
don't follow why this should be included in the content of the note.  (The
examples in MARC21 documentation do not show this.)