[DCRM-L] FW: Proposal re: square brackets in DCRM

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Dear DCRM-L colleagues,

 

I am appending here the editors' resolution about the problem of square
brackets for transcribed data. It was written by John Attig for the rest
of the editors after the DCRM(S) editorial meetings that were held at
the Folger the week of November 6. I have made some changes to his text
based on subsequent discussion and agreement by the editors. --DJL 

 


DCRB and previous drafts of DCRM(B) leave an ambiguity in the use of
square brackets in the description. Following 0D, information in square
brackets may either be transcribed (i.e., applying all the conventions
in 0G) from a non-prescribed source or supplied by the cataloger.  In
the former case, the source of the information should be given in a
note, and in the latter case, the evidence used by the cataloger may be
given in a note.  However, the relationship between the description and
the sources may not be clear, particularly if the cataloger fails to
note the source.  Therefore, it seemed to the editors meeting in
Washington last week that DCRM should not allow transcription of data in
square brackets in areas 1, 2, 3 (for serials), 4 or 6; in these areas,
use of square brackets means that the information has been supplied by
the cataloger. Formal statements from non-prescribed sources may be
"transcribed" by quoting them in a note or supplied by the cataloger in
square brackets without applying the rules in 0G.

This marks a dramatic change from DCRB, but it is one that we all
endorsed as appropriate to support the objectives of "a more rigorous
and consistent approach to transcription" for rare materials.

In order to accomplish this change, we propose to delete provisions in
0D, 1A2.1, 2A2, 6A2.5 and adding an explicit rule not to transcribe
information from non-prescribed source to rule 0D.

The proposal could have ended there, but we wanted to address the
objection that such a proposal would omit from the body of the
description important information that appeared only on non-prescribed
sources.  The most common examples that we were aware of were edition
statements (such as "Book club edition") and series statements that
appeared only on dust jackets.  Randy Brandt was particularly emphatic
that these are important identifying characteristics for rare materials
between the early 19th and mid-20th centuries and that it was not
uncommon for such information to appear only on dust jackets. He also
felt that many rare materials were obtained from dealers or collectors
who could be depended upon to preserve the integrity of the copy.  In
these cases, he argued that including these statements (with a note of
their source) was appropriate in formulating the description.

In order to accomplish this, we propose to add dust jacket to the
sources for areas 2, 4, and 6. We also propose to add caveats in several
places about the cataloger needing to feel confident that the dust
jacket was issued with copies of the manifestation being described
before taking information from this source.  Finally, an explicit
instruction at 6A2.5 to enclose series statements taken from a dust
jacket in square brackets is to be deleted.

Although we thought it highly unlikely that publication information
would appear only on a dust, we had no logical reason to exclude
allowing the dust jacket as a prescribed source of information for area
4.  We do feel that dust jackets should not be treated like labels
affixed to the title page, i.e., we do not feel that publication
information (or any other) appearing on the dust jacket should be
transcribed instead of information given in other prescribed sources.
<end>



In addition to the proposals mentioned above, we have added a new
section IX to the Introduction, appended here, and moved "Pre-cataloging
decisions" to X. (We had earlier decided to renumber the introduction
using capital roman numerals as the least confusing or cluttered of
possible options.)

IX. Integrity of the copy

IX.1. Defects and sophistication

 

 

A greater vulnerability to damage, defect, and loss means that rare
materials, especially older printed materials, are less likely than
modern materials to be in a perfect or complete state when they reach
the cataloger. One of the cataloger's tasks is to ascertain (within
reasonable constraints) whether and how much the copy in hand deviates
from its original state as issued. Imperfections and defects are usually
easy to spot. Harder to spot during casual examination are replacement
leaves, plates, or sections from another copy, and the cataloger is not
expected to verify the integrity of each leaf in a publication unless
there is reason to suspect that the copy in hand may have been made up,
doctored, or falsified ("sophisticated"). Bibliographers' and
booksellers' descriptions are the usual source of such information. 

IX.2. Dust jackets

 

 

In the context of rare materials cataloging, dust jackets issued by the
publisher are appropriately considered part of a publication, and are
included in these rules as prescribed sources for the edition,
publication, distribution, etc., and series areas. Dust jackets often
contain valuable information not found in any other source in the
publication. Their easy detachability, however, coupled with their
original function as protection for the binding only until it was safely
in the hands of a reader, pose considerable difficulties for the rare
materials cataloger. A fine dust jacket from a poor copy may have been
exchanged with a poor dust jacket from a fine copy; the dust jacket of
an original printing may end up on the copy of a later manifestation,
and so on. When considering whether to transcribe information that
appears only on a dust jacket, the cataloger should be reasonably
confident that the dust jacket was issued with the publication. In case
of doubt, the cataloger should consider that the dust jacket was issued
with the publication.  





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20061119/6c115892/attachment.htm