[DCRB-L] Comments on beta version

[Robert Maxwell]

This message is from Larry Creider; somehow it didn't manage to get
through to the list, so we're trying again.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:51:20 -0700 (MST)
From: Laurence Creider <lcreider at lib.NMSU.Edu>
To: dcrb-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: Comments on beta version (fwd)

I think that the editorial committee has performed its work excellently;
my comments are all fairly minor ones and follow.  
	Larry Creider

DCRM(B) Beta comments

0A. "They may be used in describing any printed book"  Since we are
developing rules for rare serials, we need to say that the scope of this
text is limited to monographs somewhere in this section.

2D.  What is a named revision of an edition?  How does the example in
2D1
differ from the second example in 2C1?

4C6.  "Include the number of omitted publishers (or firms) and the
number
of omitted places (if more than one) in the supplied phrase."  When are
partnerships firms?  Or more precisely when is a partnership created
merely for one particular project and when is it more enduring?  Do we
care?  I am worried about how to count some of the early 18th century
English bookseller combines for specific editions or titles.

5B9.  Why are letterpress tables not treated as plates?  More to the
point, why are they not included in the physical description area?

5B15.  Just out of curiosity, what is the source of the instruction on
counting panels?  Have you thought how this will fit in with the
cartographic materials section?  Map catalogers are frequently concerned
with panels? Do we need to be consistent?  I would check myself, but I
don't have access here.

5B19. "When the pagination of a publication in more than one physical
unit
is not continuous, optionally give the pagination of each unit either in
parentheses after the number of units or in a note."  I think that the
option to include the pagination in parentheses should be dropped.  The
example given indicates that the pagination given in the physical
description is an approximation if there are plates.  It would be better
and easier on the gentle user if this information was always put in a
note.

5C3.  "Consider colored illustrations to be those that feature one or
more
colors other than black and white."  Close, but I don't think we're
there
yet.  Titles, particularly modern hand produced books, can be printed
and
contain illustrations in blue on white background or red on white or
sepia
on white.  If the entire book were printed in those colors, I would not
regard an illustration using those shades as colored.  How about black
type and black engraving on blue paper?  How about something like:
"Consider colored illustrations to be those that feature one or more
colors in addition to the colors of the book's paper and type?"   

5C7.  AACR2 would consider illustrations, particularly maps, in a pocket
to be accompanying material and would record them at the end of the
physical description using 5E.  Is this rule (and 5E2) necessary?  If
so,
why?

6A2.  "Blue and gold series ; no.51  Note: Series statement also appears
on t.p. as: Blue & gold series. Num. 5."  Doesn't this information
belong
not in the bibliographic record but in the authority record?  I can see
that there might be some occasion to distinguish states or issues by
such
a note,  but recording such variations regularly would lengthen
descriptions to (I think) little benefit.

7C2  "In part a translation of: Le deserteur / by M.J. Sedaine."  If
this
records the title on a particular manifestation of Le deserteur this is
ok, but the / is generally reserved for transcription.  I think the
purpose of the note is to explain the identity of the original work.  So
I
think that either the old wording or the removal of the slash would be
better.

7C14.  As I said in the meeting, I am not sure why we devote time to
listing some citations in enumerative bibliographies and/or databases
and
not others.  Maybe we should retain the obligation to cite STC, Evans,
Wing, and maybe a few others.

7C18.  "The primary statement of responsibility as found in the title
and
statement of responsibility area of the record, unless it is redundant
of
the heading."  How about adding "or is excessively lengthy?"  

Appendix C,  Superscripts and subscripts: Remove the phrase, "which is
available in the MARC character set."  1) I don't think there is such a
thing as a MARC character set; ALA and Unicode, yes.  2) I don't think
we
want to refer to specific character sets in the rules, this is like pi
and
chi.  If needed, we could use the phrase, "if present in the character
set
available to the cataloger."  I wonder if sometimes that superscript o
over a u is not more like the breve found over u in older German (and
Gothic) penmanship to indicate that the two minims are a "u" and not an
"n."  Would that make any difference?


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