[DCRM-L] imperfect copies

Wed Apr 5 17:24:21 MDT 2006

I'm away from the office for just one day and there are 18 e-mails about 0B2!

While I appreciate the point of "perfect (or more perfect)", I'm not keen on "more perfect" having to mean more perfect than the imperfect copy (rather than more perfect than perfect) and I would be happier if we wrote "perfect, or less imperfect, copy".  The following references to "the perfect copy" ignored "or more perfect" anyway, so do they need to be changed to accommodate "or less imperfect"?  If change is needed, we could say "base the description on those details".

Perhaps the following is over-fussy, but I think of copies normally as things that actually exist, which doesn't have to be the case here (that, I assume, is why we say "can be determined" rather than something straightforward such as "are known").  Staying well clear of "ideal", would it be helpful to say "details of a perfect, or less imperfect, copy, whether hypothetical or real, can be determined"?.

I've not yet worked out how to rephrase the point about brackets, but there has to be a way.  Perhaps approaching from the other direction: e.g. "Brackets are not used to indicate the imperfections of the copy in hand, but take into account all the details known from other copies." 

Best wishes

Brian Hillyard

________________________________

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu on behalf of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Wed 4/5/2006 6:53 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] imperfect copies

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

*******************************************************************
Visit the National Library of Scotland online at www.nls.uk
*******************************************************************
This communication is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you
are not the intended recipient, please notify the ICT Helpdesk on
+44 131 623 3789 or ict at nls.uk and delete this e-mail.  The
statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the
author and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Library of
Scotland.  This message is subject to the Data Protection Act 1998 
and Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and has been 
scanned by MessageLabs.
*******************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 11302 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20060405/9f1645bf/attachment.bin 