[DCRM-L] Naming convention for statements of extent

[Deborah J. Leslie]

I'm not sure this is right, Nina, although it's somewhat confused. I looked at OCLC and MARC 21, and the "statement of illustrative matter" seems to refers to the 300‡b. What clouds the issue, and something I think is downright wrong, is the second example in MARC 21 in the text Nina refers to.

When the statement of pagination and of illustrative matter are combined, they are both recorded in a single subfield $a.
300 ## $a74 p. of ill., 15 p. ;$c28 cm.
300 ## $a27 leaves of plates, 4 p. ;$c31 cm. 

Where, I ask you, does the "statement of illustrative matter" appear in the second example? It is perhaps implied by the use of "plates," but the absence of "‡b ill." belies the implication. In fact, I think MARC is just plain wrong in its confusion of extent and description of physical details. Or perhaps it's that DCRM is ahead of the curve on this one. 

__________________________ 
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. 
Head of Cataloging 
Folger Shakespeare Library 
201 East Capitol St., S.E. 
Washington, D.C. 20003 
202.675-0369 
djleslie at folger.edu | http://www.folger.edu 


-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Schneider, Nina
Sent: Tuesday, 17 March, 2009 14:44
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Naming convention for statements of extent

This sounds like a job for Controlled Vocabularies! Ha ha
 
OCLC calls the first part "Statement of pagination" and the remainder
"Statement of illustrative matter" and so does MARC21:
 

	When the statement of pagination and of illustrative matter are
combined, they are both recorded in a single subfield $a.

	300	$a74 p. of ill., 15 p. ;$c28 cm. 

	300	$a27 leaves of plates, 4 p. ;$c31 cm. 

 
 ISBD's definition of 300:

	The name of the specific type of material to which the item
belongs, and an indication of the number of pieces in an item, the
number of constituent parts (e.g. pages, frames) of an item, etc.,
consisting of one physical entity, and, for items with a playing
time, the duration of the item.

But that doesn't go beyond "constituent parts".

How helpful is that? Not very, I'm afraid. 

Nina
 
	

________________________________

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 11:20 AM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: [DCRM-L] Naming convention for statements of extent



I've twisted my tongue for years trying to use formal language to make
distinctions between the two parts that together make up the statement
of extent. I'm hoping this community can establish a convention for
referring to these two parts, and throw this out as a suggestion. 

 

*         The "statement of text" = the first sub-element of the
statement of extent, comprising the extent of letterpress leaves (or
plates, if the book is wholly or primarily plates as in 5B1.4)  

*         The "statement of plates" = second sub-element of the
statement of extent, comprising the extent of plates

 

It's imperfect, because what's on the letterpress may not be text, but I
can't think of anything better. 5B1.4 itself provides a precedent: "If
the leaves are all or chiefly non-letterpress, record them as leaves or
pages of text  ..."

 

 

__________________________ 
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. 
Head of Cataloging 
Folger Shakespeare Library 
201 East Capitol St., S.E. 
Washington, D.C. 20003 
202.675-0369 
djleslie at folger.edu | http://www.folger.edu <http://www.folger.edu>