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

[at2186 at columbia.edu]

Yes, DCRM(B) and AACR2 allow statement of resp. punctuation for such
phrases in Area 1. Neither does in Area 2.

Had you and the other editors removed the sentence forbidding the
semicolon, the remaining rule 2C3.2 would still not allow an
unidentified phrase to be transcribed (i.e., punctuated) as a
separate statement of responsibility.

Your suggested "other edition information" approach with the colons
might work. I'm not sure offhand.

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

> 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.
>
>
>
>