[DCRM-L] Question re. Unusual Imprint

[Noble, Richard]

Greetings all--

 

Hmmm... Extrapolating from 4D1.3, it would seem that

 

 ... $b Erstlich getruckt zu Mittelburg, im Jahr 1594, $c nachgetruckt im Jahr 1620

 

would be acceptable, if not obligatory, as analogue of “$c printed in the year 1620”. That portion of the imprint is certainly grammatically separable, but I grant that there may be a conceptual or even narrative unity that might be respected. It’s all a bit artificial, of course, when things get this complicated. 

 

Anyone up for compiling BSCRI’s in these cases? (Now there’s a committee assignment!) - Richard

 

RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-2093 : RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU 

 

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 2:23 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Question re. Unusual Imprint

 

Hi Tom,

 

Actually, nothing gets transcribed in ‡a. I agree with Jain that a conjecture of "[Mittelburg?]" is most reasonable. All transcription takes place in ‡b, which is the default element for transcribing grammatically inseparable publication data. See DCRM(B) 4C3. 

 

260 __ $a [Mittelburg?] : $b Erstlich getruckt zu Mittelburg, im Iahr 1594, nachgetruckt im Iahr 1620, ‡c [1620]

 

I'm assuming that in German, the whole clause "nachgetrucket im Iahr 1620" is considered grammatically inseparable. Just as in English, we wouldn't normally split "Printed in the year 1620."

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Fletcher, Jain
Sent: Friday, 02 October, 2009 12:31
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Question re. Unusual Imprint

 

Hi, Tom,

   I’ll let others test the new rules to see if they cover this situation (so many permutations of publication statements in “real life situations”, it’s impossible to be sure they’ve all been taken care of in the various scenarios considered in the process of creating rules). I am just going to respond to one of your points. It’s true there is no indication of where the imprint was done the second time, but my feeling is that there is a pretty strong possibility that “no indication” means there was no change (repetition not being worth the extra type). So, for that reason, I would think you have a fairly good reason to put [Mittleburg?] in your subfield $a.                                                                                                                             --Jain

Jain Fletcher
Principal Cataloger & Head, Technical Services Division
Department of Special Collections
Young Research Library - UCLA Box 951575
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1575

v: (310) 794-4096
f: (310) 206-1864
e: jfletchr at library.ucla.edu <mailto:jfletchr at library.ucla.edu> 

 

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Bolze, Thomas
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 8:18 AM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: [DCRM-L] Question re. Unusual Imprint

 

Colleagues - 

 

I have a German-language item with the following imprint:

 

Erstlich getruckt zu Mittelburg, im Iahr 1594, nachgetruckt im Iahr 1620.

 

My question is how this would be entered in the 260, since there's no indication of where the reprint was done.  Would all of this go in the subfield c, eg.:

 

260 __ $a [Germany? : $b s.n.], $c erstlich getruckt zu Mittelburg, im Iahr 1594, nachgetruckt im Iahr 1620.

 

Or would a portion of the imprint instead be transcribed in the subfield a?

 

Many thanks for your advice.

 

Tom Bolze

Catalog Librarian

Rare Book Team

Yale University Library

P.O. Box 208240

New Haven, CT 06520-8240

203-432-8302

thomas.bolze at yale.edu

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20091002/a6e1a27a/attachment.htm