[DCRM-L] BSR/Rare Books

Tue Apr 27 15:13:42 MDT 2010

My take on this is that there's a rule missing from DCRM(B), and its absence really hits those of us working with 19th- and 20th-century publications.

4A6.2.2 states in part,
"if the manufacturer is known not to be the publisher … and the identity of the publisher can be determined or reasonably surmised … supply the name of the publisher … in square brackets and transcribe the manufacturer statement as such according to the instructions in 4E, 4F, and 4G."

What we need is a rule 4A6.2.3: for when the manufacturer is "known not to be the publisher," but the identity of the publisher CANNOT be determined.

For me there's a disconnect here: If we can "reasonably surmise" the identity of an unnamed publisher, then the name of some insignificant jobber whose name appears in tiny type in the colophon of a 1910 publication is relegated to parentheses at the end of the publisher area.  Sounds good to me; that's precisely what the $ efg and the parentheses are for.

But if, for the next title in our cataloging backlog, we cannot guess who the publisher was, then that very same jobber -- essentially, an Edwardian era Kinko's -- is suddenly elevated to the status of publisher. To put it another way: we "know" the manufacturer is not the publisher. But we transcribe it as the publisher anyway?

The information in 4A6 does a very good job of noting the sometimes subtle, sometimes nonexistent distinction between publisher and printer in the hand-press period. For the machine-press period it's also very clear, except that there it's saying something else: that the difference between publisher and printer became distinct and meaningful, and mere printers "came to be subordinate." So why should we, in effect, pay attention to 4A6 only part of the time?

The problem hits us when we catalog modern publications, where a manufacturer is a manufacturer … except when he isn't because we ran out of rules.

Deborah is right that there is no provision at all for [S.l. : s.n., date] (place : publisher, date) in DCRM(B). I wish there were an explicit provision.  The question now is whether we can apply a more generous reading of the rules that are there. Does the want of a rule imply that a practice is forbidden? (I really am asking a question; I don't think it does, but I don't know in this case.)

Stephen

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 4:14 PM
To: Barrett, Marcia; DCRM Revision Group List; BIBCObox at loc.gov
Cc: Joe Springer; jxa16 at psulias.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] BSR/Rare Books

Thanks for your careful consideration of these issues, Marcia.

Please note that none of the rules relating to any of the areas are to be restricted to hand-press or machine-press only, and area 4 encompasses the largest set of augmentations in order to explicitly include machine-press books. (Except for area 6, which didn't exist in DCRB).

The rules in question are 4A6.2.1-2. Since you are talking about situations where there are statements relating only to manufacture, that statement is to be transcribed in the place, name, and date of publishing, distribution, etc. The only exception to that is for the kind of situation you're invoking below, for when there is a manufacture statement only, but the manufacturer is known not to be the publisher. If the publisher is known or can be reasonably surmised, supply that information in the place, name, and date of publishing, etc., and put the manufacture in the place, name, and date of manufacture.

I see no provision at all for [Sl. : s.n., date] ‡e (<place> : ‡f <manufacturer>, <date>).

Would some of the other B editors and those involved in the revision of DCRB please give your readings of this situation vis-à-vis  the rules?
From: Barrett, Marcia [mailto:mbarrett at ua.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, 27 April, 2010 16:02
To: DCRM Revision Group List; BIBCObox at loc.gov; Deborah J. Leslie
Subject: RE: BSR/Rare Books

On behalf of the group that worked on the draft BSR for Rare Books, I’d like to respond to the points Deborah has raised.  The Task Group has taken some time to consider this, particularly the issues associated with area four.  This raises questions about how to interpret the instructions for area four and points to an important discussion for the DCRM community.

DCRM(B) rule 4A6 and its explanatory footnote clearly separate the issues of how the roles of publisher v. manufacturer were different in the hand press period than they were in the 19th century and beyond.  We believe the intention here is to allow for accurate transcription of all permutations found in publisher/manufacturing statements.  Deborah’s statements are true for books of the hand-press era.  The text prepared for the 260 portion of the BSR for Rare Books took into account that the majority of situations would fall into the possibility of recording either publisher or printer in $a-b.

However, our understanding of rule 4A6 and its explanatory footnote is a broad interpretation that allows for the possibility of an instance where “[S.l. : s.n.] ; <date> $e (<place> : $f <printer>)” could exist.  The scope of the BSR for Rare Books does not exclude books printed after 1800.  It is these later materials, where only information related to printing is found on the item and publication information is unknown, that call for such an allowance.  As an example, a 19th century or later book may have no publisher statement and very small printed text in the colophon giving the name and location of the stereotyping or collotyping.  This constitutes an absence of true publication information, and we believe that rule 4A6 and its footnote agree with the rationale for recording this information in the $e-f in this instance.

With regard to the two notes in question for the BSR for Rare Books, the MAP was modeled on the Books BSR.  The Task Group agrees that it would be appropriate to drop the 505 note from the MAP and to add a note (Mandatory if Applicable) for transposition of transcribed text.

Marcia

Marcia Barrett

Special Collections Cataloger

University Libraries

The University of Alabama

Box 870266

Tuscaloosa AL  35487-0266

205-348-6390

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 2:04 PM
To: BIBCObox at loc.gov
Cc: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: [DCRM-L] BSR/Rare Books

Carolyn and colleagues,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the BSR drafts. I've read over the BSR for Rare Books and think it is a fine document, with only a couple of places that still need refinement. (With contrite apologies to my RBMS colleagues for not catching these while the BSR draft was still in the drafting stage.)

Field 260 ‡e‡f‡g, reads:

Lacking substantive information for ‡a and/or ‡b, supply useful information in manufacturer subfields.

This instruction to supply helpful information in subfields ‡e‡f‡g violates the rules for area 4. See especially 4A6, which elaborates (in great detail!) the relationships between publication/distribution and manufacture in the hand-press era and how to treat them. The only time 260 ‡e‡f‡g may be used is when an item 1) bears both a publisher, distributor, etc., statement and a manufacturer statement, 2) the publisher is emphasized over the manufacturer, and 3) the two statements are grammatically separable.  (4A6.3.2.2) If an item does not bear substantive information, the cataloger uses subfields ‡a‡b‡c to supply whatever information can be had. I recommend dropping these three subfields entirely from the BSR for Rare Books.

505 Formatted contents note. DCRM(B) 1D2.3 makes it clear that transcribing formal contents is optional. Is it appropriate for an optional note in the rules be elevated to a Mandatory if Applicable note in the BSR?

5xx The text in the MAP makes it apparent that all notes required in DCRM(B) are also Mandatory if Applicable to the BSR. One 500 note, on the source of the title proper, is given in the list. There is another type of required note that I believe to be as important as the source of the title proper and a lot more common: any transposition of transcribed text is to be noted. (1B1.2 etc.) I recommend adding this note to the MAP.
__________________________
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
RBMS Chair 2009-2010 | 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/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20100427/47367a6e/attachment.htm 