[DCRM-L] Emergency: 2C3.2, again

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Thanks, Alex. I did review the earlier discussion before I posted again. I think I can understand the reasoning, but I don't agree with it. We punctuate other title information in the 245 as statements of responsibility if they follow the first statement of responsibility. The separation of clauses with marks of punctuation make it easy to read. I don't actually think that we meant to leave in that sentence not introducing the semi-colon. 
 
But given that it's in there, would it be appropriate to punctuate "other edition information" as subsequent statements of other edition information even if they follow a statement of responsibility? 
 
The second edition, newly revised and very much augmented with a collection of choose epistles / |b written by the most refined wits of France : also some new additions to the complements and elegancies of the French tongue : never publish'd before.

 
__________________________________
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
Head of Cataloging
Folger Shakespeare Library
201 East Capitol St., S.E.
Washington, DC 20003
202.675-0369
djleslie at folger.edu

________________________________

From: at2186 at columbia.edu [mailto:at2186 at columbia.edu]
Sent: Mon 2007-02-12 22:28
To: DCRM Revision Group List; Deborah J. Leslie
Cc: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Emergency: 2C3.2, again



Deborah,

Here's what I said about this example when you asked in 2005. As I
recall there was no response, so perhaps it wasn't helpful (and
still won't be). But it still seems pertinent to me. In short, I
believe DCRM(B) retains 2C3.2 because (as in AACR2) an Area 2
phrase lacking the identification of a person or corporate body
doesn't qualify as a legit "statement of responsibility" and
therefore isn't punctuated like one.

That I think is a plausible answer for why the rule exists as
is--AACR2 compliance.