[DCRM-L] BSR/Rare Books

[Ann W. Copeland]

I agree with Marcia's team that the footnote and 
the phrase at 4A6 indicate that later books would 
require [Sl. : s.n., date] ‡e (<place> : ‡f 
<manufacturer>, <date>) when the publisher is unknown. This is also AACR2:

1.4G1.
If the name of the publisher is unknown and the 
place and name of the manufacturer are found in 
the 
<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=folioinfobase%7CAacr2&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7CItemSLASHglossary&s_type=phrase&hash=ItemSLASHglossary>item, 
give the place and name of the manufacturer.
[S.l. : s.n.], 1970 (London : High Fidelity Sound Studios)

I believe that we did discuss this way back when, 
and in DCRMS have an example at 4F that sort of gets to this:

  Boston : [s.n., 1842-1873] (Boston : Tuttle & Dennett)

Annie

At 04:14 PM 4/27/2010, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:
>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/20100428/a39181b4/attachment.htm