[DCRM-L] DCRM(B) 2C3

[Alex Thurman]

Hi all,

I interpret DCRM(B) 2C3's injunction against introducing the semicolon to 
mean the following:

A clause in an edition statement should only be punctuated as a statement 
of responsibility (i.e., slash before first, semicolon before subsequent) 
if that clause names or otherwise identifies a person or corporate body.

Here are the provided examples:

The fourth edition, with notes [no id., hence no slash]

A new edition / by Grace Webster, to which is added a life of the author 
[no id. for latter clause, hence no semicolon]

Extending this reading to Deborah's example,
"The second edition. Newly revised, and very much augmented with a 
collection of many choise epistles, written by the most refined wits of 
France. Also some new additions to the complements and elegancies of the 
French tongue; never publish'd before."

The "most refined wits of France" are clearly the authors of the now 
included epistles, but I don't think they did the revising and augmenting, 
so it looks odd to me to have the second sentence introduced by a slash. 
Perhaps the slash could come after augmented. Further, I would read the 
rule as saying that the phrase beginning "Also" does not contain any 
identification and therefore wouldn't be preceded by a semicolon. And I'd 
drop that last semicolon before "never."

So following this reading of the rule, it might look like this:
The second edition, newly revised, and very much augmented / with a 
collection of many choise epistles, written by the most refined wits of 
France, also some new additions to the complements and elegancies of the 
French tongue, never publish'd before

If I decided the "wits of France" was a description rather than an 
identification, I'd omit the slash too.

This is just my interpretation of the existing rule, not what I think of as 
best possible practice. I think that the key divergence with AACR2 is 
DCRB/DCRM(B)'s stipulation that only a phrase including a personal name or 
corporate body identification qualifies as a separate statement of resp. 
meriting a slash or semicolon. AACR2 doesn't differentiate punctuation for 
stmts of resp. with identifications from those without one. I don't see why 
DRM(B) should.


Alex Thurman
Cataloger
Columbia University Libraries
535 W. 114th St.
New York, NY 10027
at2186 at columbia.edu


--On Monday, August 01, 2005 8:56 PM -0400 "Deborah J. Leslie" 
<DJLeslie at folger.edu> wrote:

>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> I am forwarding (with permission) an exchange between Robert Maxwell and
> me on DCRM(B) 2C3, for statements of responsibility relating to the
> edition. Quoting the second part of the rule:
>
>
>
> If the phrase does not name a person or corporate body, transcribe it as
> part of the edition statement proper or as part of the first statement of
> responsibility relating to the edition, as appropriate. Do not introduce
> the semicolon (as in 1E14) to separate such phrases from preceding
> statements of responsibility.
>
>
>
> As you can see from Bob's comments, he believes (and I am persuaded) that
> identifying a group such as the "wits of France" is appropriate for
> consideration as a statement of responsibility for an edition. But there
> is an odd prohibition against introducing a semi-colon in edition
> statements of responsibility, carried over from DCRB and possibly from
> BDRB. It does not comply with AACR2, which, giving the following as an
> example, clearly permits the use of a semi-colon.
>
>
>
> The well-beloved : a sketch of a temperament / Thomas Hardy. -- New
> Wessex ed. / introduction by J. Hillis Miller ; notes by Edward Mendelson
>
>
> Are we missing something? Is there any particular rare book reason for
> this semi-colon prohibition? An interesting but no longer relevant
> history? (Speak now or forever hold your peace!)
> _________________________________
> Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
> Head of Cataloging
> Folger Shakespeare Library
> djleslie at folger.edu
> http://www.folger.edu
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Maxwell [mailto:robert_maxwell at byu.edu]
> Sent: Friday, 22 July, 2005 16:10
> To: Deborah J. Leslie
> Subject: RE: Emergency DCRM(B) interpretation needed!
>
>
> Deborah,
>
> No doubt this is too late for this week, but I've been away all week. I
> would say certainly "most refined wits of France" identifies the
> responsible parties. They are not "named" in the sense of a corporate
> body, but they are identified in my opinion. I would start the statement
> of responsibility with "/ newly revised ..." I think I would punctuate
> the last bit "... wits of France ; also some ..." I do think the part of
> the rule that says "do not introduce the semicolon ..." is a little odd.
> Does that correspond to something in AACR2? Why in the world should we
> prescribe such a thing? In any case, in this situation I can't imagine
> how you could punctuate it without the semicolon. I should think to have
> or not to have a semicolon in any given situation could perfectly well be
> left up to the cataloger's judgment.
>
> How did you do it?
>
>
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
> Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801)422-5568
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> From: Deborah J. Leslie [mailto:DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 7:57 PM
> To: Robert Maxwell; Deborah J. Leslie; Joe A Springer (E-mail); John
> Attig (E-mail); Manon Theroux (E-mail)
> Subject: Emergency DCRM(B) interpretation needed!
> Importance: High
>
>
>
> Dear Editors,
>
> I am teaching at Rare Book School this week, using DCRM(B). It's going
> very well, and I can pass along specific comments later. But right now,
> please help me interpret 2C3, and whether the following qualifies as a
> statement of responsibility for an edition. In original punctuation:
>
>
> The second edition. Newly revised, and very much augmented with a
> collection of many choise epistles, written by the most refined wits of
> France. Also some new additions to the complements and elegancies of the
> French tongue; never publish'd before.
>
>
> I know we clarified that for a statement of responsibility to be
> recognized as such for an edition statement, a person or body must be
> named or identified. Does "most refined wits of France" count as
> identification? If so, where does the slash go? The example for 2C1
> throws me off somewhat. How is the information following "wits of France"
> punctuated?
>
> Thanks for whatever emergency advice you can provide!
>
> _________________________________
> Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
> Head of Cataloging
> Folger Shakespeare Library
> djleslie at folger.edu
> http://www.folger.edu
>
>
>
>