[DCRM-L] imperfect copies

[Beth Russell]

I think this last suggestion is about as clear as it can get.

But one nitpick -- would it be clearer to 
reposition the "however?" It sets off the 
contrast between describing the copy and 
describing the "perfect" copy more closely for me, at least.

0B2. Imperfect copies. In general, base the 
description on the copy in hand. HOWEVER, if this 
copy is known to be imperfect, 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 <
>

Beth

At 01:53 PM 4/5/2006, you 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>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>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

----------------------
Beth M. Russell
Associate Professor
Head, Special Collections Cataloging
The Ohio State University Libraries
1858 Neil Avenue Mall
Columbus OH 43210-1286
614-247-7463
FAX 614-292-2015
russell.363 at osu.edu
----------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20060405/f0623b84/attachment.htm