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

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Thanks for your comments, Larry. 

I want to address a couple of small things. The first is that this (a
more rigorous approach to square brackets) has actually been under
discussion for some time. 

Second, the restriction of square brackets to supplied material is
exactly how the literate populace uses them and is used to seeing them.
Look at Chicago Manual of Style, for instance, or any other style
manual. There's a chance that it may cause some confusion for
catalogers, but it would be only momentary. The biggest effect has
nothing to do with dust jackets, but will be that statements of
responsibility not appearing on the chief source of information will no
longer be transcribed in the 245. That was a decision we made some
months ago, and was included in the 20060905 eta version. If a cataloger
sees something transcribed in square brackets, the accompanying note
should make it clear enough. And if it doesn't have an accompanying note
then it's pre-BDRB and it's a hopeless case anyway.

I'll let the dust jacketeers respond to DJ comments. 

______________________________________________________
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
Chair, RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee
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



-----Original Message-----
From: lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu [mailto:lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu] 
Sent: Monday, 20 November, 2006 14:54
To: DCRM Revision Group List; Deborah J. Leslie
Cc: jkuh at loc.gov
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] FW: Proposal re: square brackets in DCRM


Oh my!  This is the sort of basic change that one doesn't want to see
made at 
the last moment.  The limitation on the use of square brackets to
"cataloger
supplied information" is something I could probably live with and
something 
that makes sense in view of the generally stricter approach to
transcription in 
DCRM.  However, the change would only be intelligible to those who know
the 
codes involved and who have access to a MARC view that will include the
$edcrm
(b), i.e. very  few of our users. The extension of prescribed sources to

include the dust jacket for areas 1,2,3 (for serials), 4, and six is a 
different matter.

I do not think it is appropriate to include as part of the publication
something that is not integral to it, not physically connected to it.
Dust
jackets get detached from their original covers all too easily.  Once
the dust
jacket has gone missing, one is faced with producing a bibliographic
ghost by
describing a manifestation that doesn't fit any existing one (because it
lacks
the dustjacket's series statement) or, more likely, being unable to
determine to
which of a number of manifestations a given copy belongs.  I'm sure that
there
are reputable collectors and book dealers, but they can only speak to
the
integrity of the copy once it has gotten to their hands.  The likelihood
of the
original jacket being kept in a copy that has stayed in one family until
it was
sold to a book dealer 10 years ago may apply in many cases, but there
are also 
many scenarios that can be envisaged that would put the wrong dust
jacket with 
a particular copy.

The inclusion of the dust jacket as a prescribed source of information
means 
also that the decision as to whether or not such a statement indicates
as a 
different edition or issue has already been pre-judged.  This will be
find for 
those libraries that wish to make such distinctions, but it will be less

helpful for other libraries.  I would rather leave the matter open.
Could we 
perhaps say that if a library wishes to catalog at the issue level or to

consider differences in dust jackets indicate different editions, the
library 
should include the dust jacket as a prescribed source of information and

indicate the source of the information in a note? 

I can see that one reason for Rudy's argument in an OCLC environment is
that
the de-duplication algorithm will combine records that do not contain
differences in areas 1,2,3,4, or 6.  I am never happy with basing
cataloging
rules or practices on system limitations.

Even if I were accept the statement in IX.2 that dust jackets are a
prescribed 
source of information, I would still have problems with the last
sentence: "In 
case of doubt, the cataloger should consider that the dust jacket was
issued 
with the publication."  This seems almost the reverse of what the rest
of the 
paragraph demands with its emphasis on the fragility of such
information. I 
think that in case of doubt, one should not consider that the dust
jacket was 
issued with the publication.

Larry Creider


Quoting "Deborah J. Leslie" <DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu>:

> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>