[DCRM-L] imperfect copies

Thu Apr 6 11:05:05 MDT 2006

Learn something everyday! Who knew?

I was really trying to suggest a stronger 
contrast between the two clauses of the sentence. 
If there's a better word, I'm not married to "however."

Beth

At 12:59 PM 4/6/2006, you wrote:
>Hello all,
>
>Regarding the "nitpicky" note pertaining to 
>"however" (we all know we like to be nitpicky!), 
>I would like to refer to Strunk and White's take on the word:
>
>"Avoid starting a sentence with however when the 
>meaning is "nevertheless." The word usually 
>serves better when it is not in the first 
>position . ... When however comes first, it 
>means "in whatever way" or "to whatever extent."
>
>Clearly this is meant to be advisory and not 
>prescriptive, but if we are concerned about 
>"correctness" I thought it should be considered.
>
>Sorry for the lateness of my response.  I also 
>liked the wording suggested by Stephen and think 
>that "perfect" is preferable to "complete" -- 
>especially since we have a definition.
>
>Thanks,
>Arvid
>
>R. Arvid Nelsen
>Coord. of Technical Services/Original Cataloger/Classical Studies Librarian
>University of California, San Diego
>Mandeville Special Collections Library
>9500 Gilman Drive, 0175S
>La Jolla, CA 92093-0175
>Phone: 858-534-6766
>Fax: 858-534-5950
>
>
>
> >>> penny.welbourne at yale.edu 04/05/06 02:32PM >>>
>I think Beth's suggestion to move "however" to the beginning of the
>sentence is an excellent one.
>
>Penny
>
>
>At 02:43 PM 4/5/2006, you wrote:
> >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
> >----------------------
>
>Penny Welbourne
>Rare Book Team
>Catalog Department
>Yale University Library
>penny.welbourne at yale.edu
>Phone: (203)432-8378

----------------------
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
----------------------