[DCRM-L] imperfect copies

[Laurence Creider]

I was just going to suggest using "complete" instead of perfect, when 
Deborah's latest note showed why that won't work.  "Perfect" is probably 
the best term, particularly since there is a glossary definition.
One question, though:  Does "correctly arranged, as issued" cover such 
instances as when all the copies have mis-signed gatherings?  Might it be 
better to change the glossary entry for perfect to say "physically 
arranged as issued?"

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

On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:

> We have the term defined in the glossary:
>
> Perfect copy. A copy of a publication that is physically complete and
> correctly arranged, as issued.
>
>
>
> This is exactly the situation we mean to convey with 0B2. What's more,
> it is almost unbearably awkward to use "copy without the
> imperfection(s)" since for clarity's sake, it must be used more than
> once in the text of the rule. I also think that the addition of the
> parenthetical phrase "or more perfect" covers reasonable contingencies.
> Again, my suggestion is:
>
>
>
> 0B2. Imperfect copies. In general, base the description on the copy in
> hand. If this copy is known to be imperfect, however, and details of a
> perfect (or more perfect) copy can be determined, base the description
> on the perfect copy. Use brackets only where required for description of
> the perfect copy. In such cases <...>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
> Behalf Of Stephen Skuce
> Sent: 05 April 2006 13:47
> To: DCRM Revision Group List; DCRM Revision Group List
> Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] imperfect copies
>
>
>
> Deborah,
>
> The version of 0B2 originally posted for comment today already made
> reference to "the perfect copy," so I felt free to reuse the term.  But
> I will say I noticed the term's presence: I think we had lots of
> discussion (and nervousness) in the glossary group and in BSC generally
> about using the term "perfect copy" because of the chance for confusion
> with the loaded term "ideal copy."
>
> Stephen
>
> At 01:29 M 4/5/2006 -0400, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:
>
>
>
>
> One of my earlier rewrites reads almost exactly as does Stephens, but I
> was concerned about the introduction of the word perfect.Weve had
> discussion on that before.  If we are going to use perfect,whats to
> prevent us from introducing it earlier, as in:
>
>
>
> 0B2. Imperfect copies. In general, base the description on the copy in
> hand. If this copy is known to be imperfect, however, and details of a
> perfect copy can be determined, base the description on the perfect
> copy.  Use brackets only where required for description of the perfect
> copy.
>
>
>
> We do have pefect copyin the glossary. Can someone remind me why we
> decided not to use it in 0B2?
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
> Behalf Of Stephen Skuce
> Sent: 05 April 2006 12:53
> To: DCRM Revision Group List; DCRM-l at lib.byu.edu
> Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] imperfect copies
>
>
>
> I think breaking up the long second sentence helps.
>
>
> 0B2. Imperfect copies. In general, base the description on the copy in
> hand. If this copy is known to be imperfect, however, and details of a
> copy without the imperfection(s) can be determined, base the description
> on the copy without the imperfection(s).  Use brackets only where
> required for description of the perfect copy.
>
> Stephen
> At 11:57 AM 4/5/2006 -0400, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:
>
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Im not sure the instructions for cataloging an imperfect item when a
> description for a perfect item is available are clear.
>
> 0B2. Imperfect copies. In general, base the description on the copy in
> hand. If this copy is known to be imperfect, however, and details of a
> copy without the imperfection(s) can be determined, base the description
> on the copy without the imperfection(s), bracketing only as description
> of the perfect copy would require.
>
> Is this clear? Is there a better way of saying it?
>
> __________________________________________
>
> Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
>
> Chair, RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee
>
> http://www.folger.edu/bsc/index.html
>
> Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare Library
>
> 201 East Capitol St., S.E.
>
> Washington, D.C. 20003
>
> djleslie at folger.edu || 202.675-0369
>
> http://www.folger.edu
>
> | Stephen Skuce  |  Rare Books Cataloging Librarian     | MIT Libraries
> |  Building 14E-210B  |  617.253.0654 |  skuce at mit.edu
>
> | Stephen Skuce  |  Rare Books Cataloging Librarian
> | MIT Libraries  |  Building 14E-210B  |  617.253.0654 |  skuce at mit.edu
>
>