[DCRM-L] DCRM(B) 2C3

[Alex Thurman]

Hi, Deborah--

I'll make that argument, repeating part of what I said earlier but with a 
different conclusion.

I believe DCRB(M) currently prohibits a semicolon only if "the phrase does 
not name a person or corporate body." A subsequent stmt. of resp. that does 
include an identification would be introduced by a semi-colon, per 2C1's 
instruction to follow 1E.

I think the key issue here is not "semicolon or not," but rather--is a 
phrase in an edition statement that does not name a person or a corporate 
body really a distinct [and, therefore, punctuated] statement of 
responsibility?

The bottom line seems to be--why does a phrase that doesn't include an 
identification count as a statement of resp. in Area 1 but not in Area 2? 
If the editors decide to eliminate this distinction, then 2C1 will need 
revision as well as 2C3.

However, looking again at AACR2's treatment of Area 2, I can find no 
examples there that contradict DCRB(M)'s examples in 2C1 and 2C3. AACR2 
doesn't punctuate Area 2 phrases that lack identifications (e.g., the 
"partly rev." in "2nd. ed., partly rev.") as stmts. of resp., either. The 
nearest example in AACR2 to our situation is in 1.2D1 and 2.2D1, where 
subsequent phrases without identification (such as "Repr., with minor 
revisions") are not introduced with semicolons.

So I now suspect that the historical reason behind DCRB/DCRM(B)'s treatment 
of this is AACR2 compliance. If we reverse the prohibitions in 2C1 and 2C3 
and allow phrases without identification to be punctuated as stmts. of 
resp. then we are requiring transcriptions like "The second edition / 
revised and corrected" that contradict examples in AACR2.2B1. Moreover, the 
same principle of reserving stmt. of resp. punctuation for phrases with an 
identification obtains in the example in 2D1 (compare to 2E1) as well.

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


 --On Monday, August 08, 2005 2:05 PM -0400 "Deborah J. Leslie" 
<DJLeslie at folger.edu> wrote:

> Is there anyone at all who wants to argue in favor of keeping the
> prohibition against introducing the semi-colon for subsequent statements
> of responsibility in edition?
> I'm still very interested in hearing its history, if anyone knows it.
>
>
> ________________________________
> Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
> Head of Cataloging
> Folger Shakespeare Library
> 201 East Capitol St., SE
> Washington, DC 20003
> 202.675-0369
> djleslie at folger.edu
>
>
>



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 2664 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20050808/52ce2a63/attachment.bin