[DCRM-L] DCRM(B) entire

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Gentle DCRM-L readers
Appended is David Woodruff's proofreading comments on the whole document with my responses. The more substantive of these he has already pulled out and posted separately. 
GENERAL

The phrase "Editorial comment" seems cumbersome. I would omit "Editorial." "Comment" by itself is enough to indicate that what follows is meta-text, not part of the example that precedes it. Furthermore, "editorial" isn't quite the right word. The comments don't come from independent editors, but from the same people who wrote the rules and provided the examples; still less are they editorial comments as opposed to the straight news. [DJL] "Editorial" deleted

The boxes giving alternative rules on p. 31, 59, 60, 66 & 91 (but not those in Appendix G) don't extend as far to the right as do lines of text that are outside the boxes. I think the boxes would look better if extended a couple of spaces closer to the right margin of the page, as in Appendix G. [DJL] Ah, yes. This turned out to be an easy thing to fix, not always the case in dealing with MS Word styles, or MS Word formatting in general.

There are three approaches to punctuating rules with alternative continuations on separate lines. Lower cases letters with right parens [a), b), c), etc.] occur before the alternative continuations on p. 25, 50, 98, 136. Square bullets occur on p. 145 ff. There is no punctuation at all on p. 26 & 55. Additionally, in some of these rules the alternative continuations end with semi-colons and in others they do not. Should these be made consistent? One place definitely needs to be changed: on p. 147-8 a sub-list of alternatives with square bullets is subordinate within a list that already has square bullets. [DJL] note to self: asked DW which he preferred

Pairs of examples that are labeled "On source" and "Transcription."  I think "Source" by itself and "Transcription" would be simpler, more parallel and perfectly clear. I'm also not sure that "on" is the right preposition with "source." "On t.p." of course, but I think I would say "In source." "In the source" occurs on p. 91, second paragraph. [DJL] Dropt "On".

Italicized or/but/and in the margin before examples. These words seem quite separated visually from the examples they precede. Could they be indented ¼"? DCRB has something similar. [DJL] A mere .15" was needed to indent the conjunction so that it was a bit closer to the example and didn't mess up other spacing or alignment. 

PREFACE

p. 5, 2nd par., last line. Director for Cataloging Beacher Wiggins (now Director for Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access) first authorized the revision and the Bibliographic Standards Committee's lead role in it, and Barbara B. Tillett, Chief of the Cataloging Policy and Support Office, reconfirmed it his decision. (antecedent of "it" is plural). [DJL] Done

p. 7, 1st par. Conferrers Those who attended the Conference [DJL] Changed to "Conference participants were:"

p. 7, last line ff. Take italics off names and insert in alpha order. [DJL] Done

INTRODUCTION

p. 9, Intro 1.2. "printed textual monographs" for "printed textual monographic publications" (they don't have to be published, and the phrase is long)
...which were traditionally applied intended to apply exclusively to pre-1801 imprints" [DJL] Actually, I think they do have to be published in some form, but "printed" in the phrase covers in meaning what we're dropping out by eliminating "publications." 

Intro 2.2. Space between MARC and 21 (5 occurrences) [DJL] You're right! I don't think any of us noticed that it is supposed to have a space

Intro 3.1. The primary objectives that apply to the in cataloging of rare materials are no different from those that apply to the in cataloging of other materials. These objectives focus on They are to meeting user needs to find, identify, select, and obtain materials. [DJL] Yes! That sentence was so clumsy. 

Intro 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3 and 3.1.4, boldface headings. "Users must be able" rather than "Users are able" ("Are" is possible, but these are objectives to be realized and "must be" seems more natural). [DJL] Done; this is better than both the original "shall be" and my suggested "are"

Intro 3.1.1. General cataloging codes, such as like AACR 2, assume that reliance on abbreviated and normalized transcription methods is are sufficient to distinguish among manifestations. However, users of rare materials tend to require fuller, more faithful transcriptions, the provision of greater detail in the physical description area [should Physical Description Area be capitalized? [DJL] no, we're not capitalizing the names of areas , and the careful recording of various anomalies distinguishing points [not completely sure what "anomalies" refers to] in the note area in order to identify separate manifestations. Additionally, users of rare materials are typically interested in a more complex array of finer distinctions being drawn among the variants that comprise [again not completely sure] manifestations than users of other materials, including not simply editions and issues but variant impressions and states; many also need to be able to distinguish among exemplars copies at the item level. [DJL] Much better, although I kept it "abbreviated and normalized transcription is sufficient," since the verb needs to agree with a singular noun, "transcription." I made a few other edits on your edits. One sentence that still needs work is the one about the publication area needing extra-special-faithful transcription. We want to bring out the idea that detail in the publication area is not more important than in the other transcription fields, but that it is especially important in identifying manifestations as compared to its treatment in AACR2. Your suggestions for wordsmithing are most welcome. This is what the paragraph looks like now. 

Intro 3.1.2, last sentence. The same accuracy contributes to the long-term preservation of the materials themselves, for example, by reducing unnecessary circulation of materials that do not precisely meet users' requirements. (Is reducing unnecessary circulation the only example? If so, omit "for example." If there are other examples, omit comma after "for example":  ...for example by reducing...) [DJL] I dropt "for example" and added "and examination" after "circulation"
Intro 3.1.3.  Users are must be able to investigate physical processes and post-production history and context, as exemplified in materials described.
Users of rare materials routinely investigate a variety of artifactual and post-production aspects of materials. For example, they will attempt may want to locate materials that are related by printing methods, illustration processes, binding styles and structures, provenance, form and genre [should this be "genre and form"?], etc. The ability of users to identify the materials that fit these criteria depends upon full and accurate descriptions and the provision of appropriate access points. [DJL] Made your suggested changes, except made it "form/genre" for consistency 

Intro 3.1.4. General cataloging codes, such as AACR2, routinely distinguish among manifestations through reliance  In order to distinguish among manifestations, general cataloging codes like AACR 2 typically rely on explicit bibliographic evidence... [DJL] Changed

Intro 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, and 3.2.4. The last sentence of each of these paragraphs refers to "objectives 1[-4] stated above." After six DCRM principles and five general principles offered by Svenonius, not to mention the four-fold FRBR entities, it is hard to be sure which objectives are meant here. Could we cite the paragraph where the relevant objectives are stated? Thus: The principle relates to objective 1 (Intro 3.1.1) ... objective 2 and 4 (Intro 3.1.2 and 3.1.4) ... objective 3 (Intro 3.1.3) ... all of the objectives (Intro 3.1.1-4).

Intro 3.2.2., second sentence from end. Faithfulness to both principles may require descriptive and annotative treatment necessarily exceeding that exceeds the norms (and at times the vocabulary) established as sufficient for the description of general materials.
Intro 3.2.3. Rules provide guidance for the inclusion of manifestation-specific and item-specific information that permits users to investigate physical processes and post-production history and context, as exemplified in the item described.
This principle derives from the general principle of sufficiency and necessity (with its related subprinciple of significance). Application of the principle It requires that rules for rare materials cataloging provide additional guidance on access points, particularly in cases where such information is not integral to contained in the manifestation, expression, or work described as published.
Intro 4, first bullet.
 Alternative rule  designates an alternative option affecting which affects all or several areas of the description, and which must be used consistently throughout. In DCRM(B), alternative rules apply to the transcription of original punctuation and to options revolving around the creation of a separate record for an unchanged impression. [DJL]  Changed

Intro 5, 2nd sentence. Cataloging agencies preparing descriptions in the context of a different language should replace instructions and guidelines prescribing or implying the use of English into their preferred language with others that prescribe and imply the preferred language. [DJL] Changed
Intro 9.1.1, last sentence. Such an approach may involve staged phased processing... [DJL] Changed
Intro 9.1.1 - 9.1.3. In the bold headings, replace "vs." with "or." [DJL] Pending; asked editors
p. 20, DCRM(B) full level, 3rd sentence. ...most are optional and can be applied selectively to suit a collection's or institution's needs, depending on the nature of a collection or an institution's needs. [DJL] Changed

Intro 9.1.4, 1st sentence. ...whether to describe them using a single bibliographic record or multiple bibliographic records. As a default approach, DCRM(B) is written to result in a separate record It is taken as the default approach in DCRM(B) that a separate record will be made for each variant that represents what is referred to as an "edition" in AACR2 and an "issue" in bibliographic scholarship. . [DJL] Changed

Intro 9.2.2, 6th sentence. Is funding or space Are funding and space available for hiring new temporary or permanent staff with the necessary qualifications? . [DJL] Changed

Intro 9.2.4, 3rd sentence from end. Are detailed descriptions likely to help prevent the unwanted inadvertent purchase of duplicates or the inadvertent bypassing of wanted failure to acquire desirable variants? . [DJL] Changed

0. GENERAL RULES.

0A1. These rules are based on the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules... [DJL] Changed

0A2, last sentence. They permit a the ready identification... [DJL] Changed

0D. Insert blank line after first par.
Subheading 3. (Not applicable) for [Not applicable] - normal parens are OK, there's nothing interpolated. [DJL] Changed

0G2... Make bold. [DJL] Fixed

0G2.3. Do not convert to lowercase a final capital I in Latin texts when the final I is larger than the other letters in the word uppercase and the immediately preceding letters in the word are lowercase or small caps. (The final uppercase I won't be larger than an uppercase initial letter, nor will it necessarily be larger than lowercase letters with ascenders). [DJL] Changed, except used "smaller capital letters" instead of "small caps," since we don't use the latter phrase elsewhere and haven't defined it.

0G3.3. Transcribe hyphens used to connect the parts [or constituent parts] of compound words... [DJL] Added "the constituent parts of"

0G3.5. Optional note: On title page t.p. ... [DJL] Changed

0G6.2, last example. A manuscript autograph signature, with some partially conjectured tentatively deciphered letters... (all autographs are MS; "autograph" is fancy for "signature"). [DJL] I disagree. "Signature" means a number of different things, including the marks affixed to certain leaves in gatherings as well as someone's name. To make a note that something is "signed," for example, "Preface signed: J.S. Mason" means that the signature is printed. We want to encourage precise language, and so your word change suggestion won't do. However, I do agree that "manuscript autograph" is redundant. We have used the word "conjecture" pretty consistently to mean exactly what we're doing in the note, conjecturing the illegible letters, so I am inclined to leave the rest as it is. 
Footnote 8. "without the interpolated word "blank"" for "without the interpolated blanks." [DJL] Changed, but kept square brackets as part of the quoted text. 

TITLE AND STATEMENT OF RESPONSIBLITY AREA

1A2.3. I assume that "dedications" were not omitted inadvertently from the list of information that constitutes neither title information nor a statement of responsibility. [DJL] Nope, that's a deliberate decision

1B3.2. De-bold heading. [DJL] Fixed

1E3. Roman date in example includes a lowercase c, as it does in DCRB but not in the draft of ISBD(A), where this example appears as well. Just FYI. [DJL] Well, so it does! I think that must be a typo. Even if not, I've never seen a case of mixed upper- and lowercase letters used in numerals like that. And if it were printed like that, it would need a "sic" afterwards according to DCRM(B) 0G2.1. Changed to capital C.

1E8 a). Why should it matter if qualifications are grammatically separable or not? In "John Smith of the Royal Society," "of the Royal Society" is inseparable, but it can easily be dropped, leaving "John Smith." DCRB has "unless a) the elements are necessary grammatically..." which may be getting at something slightly different. Perhaps cases were the author's name is connected syntactically to the rest of the sentence through the words for the position held. [DJL] Addressed elsewhere.

1E12, example. "Translated out of Latin into English" seems like a description of the nature of the book rather than a statement of responsibility: it's a translation from the Latin. Do we need an example here that corresponds to the Korean students in AACR2 1.1F14? Perhaps something like: A hind let loose ... / by a lover of true liberty [i.e. Alexander Shields], 1687. [DJL] No; statements indicating that someone has done something to the text are statements of responsibility, and so this example is extremely important.

1G4, 3rd sentence. ...less important words ahead of preceding it... [DJL] Changed

EDITION AREA

2B9.2. If it is considered that the parallel statements are too numerous to transcribe and that some may be omitted without significant bibliographical loss of identification, omit... Too numerous in what respect? I think we need to specify. - Is "identification" the FRBR requirement? I think "bibliographical loss" would be clearer, or we could say something like "without significant loss to the user's ability to identify the piece." These considerations apply as well to 4B6.2, 4B13.2, 4C6.2, 4C11.2, 6C2. [DJL] Another reader has brought up the point of not specifying what "too numerous" means, and we have arrived at a different solution. Throughout the text, this construction now reads "too numerous to list exhaustively ..." I don't see the problem with the "loss of identification," but I'll ask the editors what they think.

2B10, example. Maupertius Maupertuis. My only typo! [DJL] Fixed.

2B11.2, both notes. Omit "...to create a made up set." A set with a volume supplied from another ed. is by definition a made up set and the phrase is redundant. [DJL] But it may not be obvious to all users. Plus, the keyword-searchability of "made-up set" is an advantage.

2D1. What is a "named" reissue of a particular edition? A publication that is explicitly described as such in the piece? Then perhaps something like: If the publication is a revision of an edition (explicitly characterized as a reissue of a particular edition containing changes from that edition)... [DJL] We've beat our heads over and over with this one. I'll ask the editors to see if they prefer your version.

Publication, Distribution, Etc. Area

Would the headlines in Area 4 look better with Etc. lowercase?
Publication, Distribution, etc. Area [DJL] No doubt, but this is a direct copy from AACR2.

4A4, first par., last sentence. "For any other case, apply the appropriate rule..." I think it would be clearer to specify the other cases: If some but not all the information is false or incorrect, apply the appropriate rule... [DJL] I agree; but used the standard phrase "fictitious or incorrect".

4A6.3.2. If the statements are grammatically separable, determine which statement is emphasized typographically (larger font size, uppercase letters, boldface, etc.) or appears by appearing first in the source. - This change makes it clear that appearing first is the default form of emphasis for the purpose of the rules that follow, the reason why there is no rule the begins "If neither statement has been emphasized..." [DJL] Hmm. Making the change as you suggest changes the meaning of typographical emphasis. 

4B3, Editorial comment. "Latin form recognizable as Madrid" for "Recognizable as "Madrid" without elaboration." The problem is that "elaboration" isn't quite right. Alternatively, "Recognizable as Madrid without a gloss," or "...without supplying modern form"? [DJL] I have no problem with "elaboration," but concede that another term such as "qualification" would be better

4D2.4. Fictitious or incorrect dates. A question for another time is which date goes in the fixed field? The t.p. date? The actual date? Both? And how coded? [DJL] I remember doing a MARBI proposal with John Attig, trying to define a "corrected" date type, but I believe the outcome was unsatisfactory and may not have been implemented by system vendors or the utilities. The corrected date goes in the fixed field. There is a variable data field, 04X or something like that, which contains the original and corrected. I don't remember anymore ...

p. 86, first note. See for cf. [DJL] Referred to editors

p. 87, second notes. See for cf. [DJL] Ditto

p. 87, 4D4.2. Italicize Note. [DJL] Fixed.

p. 88, list at top. Insert spaces following initial comma in four lines and change font. [DJL] I don't know what you mean; spacing and font for 4D5 is correct in the proofreading copy.

p. 89, 4D7.1.  MDLVIII-1570 [1558-1570]. Wouldn't this go: MDLVIII-1570 [1558]-1570? [DJL] No, because then you'd be transcribing the arabic date twice, which isn't allowed. 

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION AREA

5A1 and 5A2. Make bold. [DJL] Fixed.

5B1.4. If the text leaves are all or chiefly non-letterpress, record them as leaves or pages of text rather than as leaves or pages of plates... - This clearly doesn't apply to all leaves. [DJL] Our purpose here is to indicate that if a book is entirely plates, or entirely plates with a letterpress t.p., it is not to be described as "leaves of plates," regardless of the content, but simply as "leaves." 

5B2, heading. Normally-imposed sheets. Omit the hyphen, as in the line that immediately follows. [DJL] Changed

5B3.2, second editorial comment. : Pages are numbered 5-40 with two unnumbered pages at the beginning; there is no evidence of copy imperfection missing leaves. Or: ...no evidence that the copy is imperfect. [DJL] That's better: changed to "no evidence that any leaves are missing."

5B5.1. Indent second line of second and third cases. [DJL] Fixed

p. 97, first editorial comment. Advertisements printed on a the final gathering... [DJL] changed

5B6.4. If a volume has a pagination of its own... [DJL] Fixed

5B6.6. Should the page totals supplied by the cataloger be bracketed? Or is the word "various" enough to let a sophisticated reader know that the totals don't appear on the piece? They aren't bracketed in DCRB. [DJL] No, nor in AACR2. I've had trouble with this one myself, but have finally decided that if the page numbers were bracketed, the implication is that they had no pagination. It's a little weak, but there's no rare book reason to depart from AACR2.  

5B9.1. Count a plate folded and bound at the inner margin as two leaves of plates. - What this mean is "folded at the inner margin and bound at the inner margin." It can be misinterpreted to mean folded (anywhere, including the fore edge or top), and bound in at the left margin, which is then the inner margin. Easy to fix: Count as two leaves a folded plate bound in at the fold. Or: Count as two leaves a folded plate bound in (or tipped onto a stub) at the fold. [DJL] I'm afraid I find your suggested rewordings no improvement over the original, and even more open to misinterpretation. Left as is 

5B15.1. If a publication is issued in more than one physical unit, give the appropriate designation for the units preceded by an arabic numeral indicating the their number of such units. Or putting the elements in left-to-right order: ...give an Arabic numeral indicating their number followed by the appropriate designation for the units. Cf. 5E1.1. [DJL] I used the wording used in 5E1.1 here, and made the last bit a "see also" instead of a "see." It now reads:
5B15.1. If a publication is issued in more than one physical unit, give the number of physical units in arabic numerals followed by the appropriate designation for the unit. (See also 5E).

5B17.1. If the pagination of the a publication... [DJL] Changed

p. 106. Indent first line. [DJL] ? This is strange; there are several instances where you've alerted me to something that doesn't actually exist in the copy I sent out for proofreading. How can that have happened? 

p. 107, second note at top. See for cf. [DJL] Pending

5D2 and 5D4.1. Give the height followed by the width, separated by a multiplication sign. - Are people happy calling the x in a statement of dimensions a multiplication sign? AACR2 avoids the issue by saying "give the height x width." [DJL] I'm not, but hadn't realized it didn't come from AACR2. It's a misnomer, and there's no rare reason for it. Changed to match AACR2

5E1.1. ...give the number of physical units of accompanying material in arabic numerals and the name of the accompanying material at the end of the physical description. [DJL] Changed to "...give the number of physical units of accompanying material in arabic numerals, and the name or description of the material at the end of the physical description."

p. 110. Indent text ½" more. [DJL] Not sure what you mean

SERIES AREA

p. 111, last line. Precede the title of a subseries, or the designation for a subseries, by a period, space. [DJL] We are following AACR2 here, except that we've substituted "period" for "full stop."

p. 112, first line. Precede the title of a subseries following a designation for the subseries by a comma, space. [DJL] Ditto

6A2.1. The prescribed sources of information for the series area are the series title page, monograph title page, cover, and rest of the publication (except a publisher's dust jacket), in that order of preference. [DJL] This is perceptive of you; elsewhere, however, I've argued that the dj should be part of the prescribed sources for rare materials. Still pending. 

6A2.6, note. See for cf. [DJL] Pending

6F, first example. Since this is actual coding from a record, shouldn't "ISSN" be omitted in accordance with MARC 21? [DJL] The example isn't in MARC coding.   

6G. - 6G1.1 - 6G1.2. Is it OK that there is no 6G1 between 6G and 6G1.1?  [DJL] Nope. If not, a general heading 6G1 could be devised, or 6G1.1 and 1.2 could be combined to form 6G1. [DJL] I'll use the fallback used elsewhere: make a heading for 6G1 called "General rule." 

6G2, note. See for cf. [DJL] Pending

p. 117. 6I for 6J. [DJL] Believe it or not, AACR2 apparently considers I/J alternate forms of the same letter for numbering purposes, and skips from H to J. As have we.

p. 122. Indent top line more. [DJL] ?

p. 124. Indent top line more. [DJL] ?

p. 130. Indent top line more. [DJL] ?

7B9.11, second sentence. ...followed by (in square brackets) an equals sign and a total count of the gatherings in that sequence in square brackets. [DJL] Left as is. The current construction is clear, and we don't insert "in square brackets" in parentheses anywhere else.

p. 132. Indent top line more. [DJL] ? 

7B10.3, third example. Port. for portrait. [DJL] Changed

p. 137. Is 7B19.1a-d OK, rather than 7B19.1.1-4 as elsewhere? [DJL] Changed

p. 138. Indent top line more. [DJL] ?

p. 138, fourth line. "Signed" for "autographed." "Autographed" seems too fancy. [DJL] Left as is; see my comments on "sign" vs. "autograph" elsewhere.

p. 138, 7B19.3.2. Make a local note whenever the number of physical units in which a publication is bound differs from the number in which it was actually issued, if considered important. - If you make a note "whenever," you do it every time, not only "if considered important." Change "whenever" to "when" or omit "if considered important." [DJL] Agreed; changed
p. 139, 7B19.3.6. Less detailed descriptions might include the color and nature of the covering material, a summary of any decoration present (e.g., "gold-tooled", "blind-tooled"), and (if these can be determined ) an approximate date, and the name of the binder, if these can be determined. "If these can be determined" applies only to the last two elements. [DJL] Changed
STANDARD NUMBER AND TERMS OF AVAILABILITY AREA
8B3. ...record the fingerprint devised derived according to a published standard... "Devised" sounds like "made up," as in "title devised by cataloger." [DJL] Changed
APPENDIX A
Will the double dagger replace the dollar sign as subfield indicator in the published version? [DJL] Do you want it to? I personally prefer the double dagger, and was suitably shocked when I noticed that MARC 21 uses the $ as subfield delimiters
A3, fourth line. Leader/07 for Leader/17. [DJL] Changed
A6, second line. ...if the descriptive portion of the record exemplifies follows DCRM(B)... [DJL] Changed to "conforms to"
APPENDIX B
B1.1, third line. Several possible rationales... [DJL] Changed
B1.1, first line of second par. ...the shared characteristics inherent in of a collection of materials... [DJL] Changed
p. 147, first line. ...consider for collection-level cataloging treatment... [DJL] Changed to "consider for collection-level treatment
p. 147, B3.2, end of first par. Individual Different collections will require differing levels... decisions about arrangement must be made collection-by-collection individually for each collection. [DJL] Changed both
p. 147-8, bulleted headings at bottom. Headings are italicized but not boldface, like similar headings on p. 157-8. Should they be the same?
APPENDIX C
p. 159, first sentence of last par. For rare books, the commitment, on the cataloger's part, The rare book cataloger's commitment is to render identify[or determine] bibliographic details of the book as accurately as possible insofar as they are presented by the specimen piece in hand; also, to ensure that they are scrupulously stated presented according to the provisions of DCRM(B).
p. 161, second par. from bottom. "Locally formulated" for "locally-formulated." [DJL] Changed; Chicago 7.87
APPENDIX E
E1.3. Is it OK that there is no punctuation or indentation for the items listed? Cf. a similar list on p. 184-5. [DJL] This will be fixed once we decide what we're doing with lists like these
APPENDIX F
p. 174, 0G2.3. Latin title proper with final capital I representing ii [DJL] Changed
p. 178 and 179, 7B11 and 7B19. Make bold. [DJL] Fixed
APPENDIX G
p. 185, third par. Omit final period. [DJL] Fixed
p. 186, G5.1. . Supplies of W and w must have been sparse scanty in Roman type font-cases cases of Roman type, and they appear to have been frequently exhausted when setting text in Dutch, English, or German. [DJL] Changed
GLOSSARY
p. 189, third line. ...accommodate these rules for to the description of special printed materials. [DJL] Changed
p. 190, Gathering. ...a fraction part of a sheet [DJL] We are reconsidering the definition for other reasons, but will probably keep it as "fraction" instead of "part" because that description comes directly from Gaskell. 
p. 191, Plate. A leaf that is chiefly or entirely non-letterpress, or a folded leaf of any kind, inserted with letterpress gatherings of text. -- The broad definition of Letterpress as relief printing causes a problem here: if plates can't be letterpress, woodcuts can't be plates. The printing technique doesn't matter for the purposes of this definition. It may be different from that of the text, or the same (e.g. lithographic plates with lithographic text). I don't see any alternative to some version of the DCRB definition, qualified to allow for engraved titles, etc., and tables: "a primarily illustrative leaf that is not an integral part of a gathering." Also a question about "a folded leaf of any kind" - would such a leaf still be a plate if printed with normal letterpress text, not in table form? [DJL] Addressed separately
p. 191, Signature. "Folding and gathering the sections" for "gathering and folding the sections." You have to fold before you can gather. [DJL] replaced "gathering and folding" with "assembling"


__________________________________________
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