[DCRM-L] RDA Follow-up to "Cataloging Defensively" Webinar re edition statements

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Richard's got it right. A distinct MARC tag will allow, not only easy
disambiguation of similar manifestations, but more precise display
options, such as square brackets for those who might want to preserve
the distinction between transcribed and supplied text.    

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Monday, 15 November, 2010 10:12
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] RDA Follow-up to "Cataloging Defensively" Webinar
re edition statements

 

The RDA rule over-ruled in the Policy Statement is rather an absurd one,
and presumes that the cataloguing agency is a large one, with numerous
employees well enough versed in various languages to advise the
uncertain cataloguer. There is, of course, an inherent conflict in this
use of the 250 field, which is normally based on transcription from the
item, when the contents are supplied as editorial invention. So now, per
policy, we compromise by making the bracketed statement look like a
transcription--that is, we fake it. (This is complicated by the fact
that in many languages there is no unambiguous terminology that can be
applied, in cataloguing books, to the edition/issue/impression taxonomy,
without further qualification and explanation. What is an "edicion"?)

 

Notes are less restricted, and a note in the language of the agency is
necessary to back up the 250. As has been frequently noted concerning
this topic, the invalidation of the 503 field has made it impossible to
isolate a search for edition-related terms to a specific field, whether
manually or by way of de-duping protocols.

 

While it is not an immediate solution (cheating is, and I'm glad you've
done it, however inadvertently), I do think that the definition of a
new, distinct tag (e.g. 251) for a cataloguer-supplied edition statement
in the language of the agency, would be a useful addition, very much on
the order of the 246 "other title", which can be anything from any
source that the cataloguer thinks will be useful (perhaps not even
requiring the 250 as well). If a statement is desperately wanted in the
language of the piece, let it be supplied by way of a parallel record
created by an agency that writes its records in that language. Some sort
of generic, Esperanto-like set of abbreviations would be useful, but I
dare say that now meets a solid RDA roadblock, they being not
immediately understanded of the people

 

This is not a trivial matter, if we want to take FRBR at all seriously:
we are talking about the identification/disambiguation of
manifestations. Or does this really not matter, in the end? Do we just
make a fudge of more or less similar manifestations? I.e., if it doesn't
matter to those who don't understand the actual distinctions, whether or
not expressed by way of abbreviation, then does it not matter at all?

 

FRBR looks to the creation of a bibliographical database, not just a
catalogue, but real bibliographies cannot be constructed with the kinds
of restrictions that we meet with in rules primarily directed to the
purpose of homogenizing master records for use in unmediated
copy-cataloguing.


RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN
UNIVERSITY
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-3384 :
RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU 



On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Schupbach, William
<w.schupbach at wellcome.ac.uk> wrote:

"The RDA Library of Congress Policy Statement 2.5.1.4 is an almost exact
restatement of AACR2 1.2B4, providing for a cataloger-supplied edition
statement:  ?LCPS for 2.5.1.4: Recording Edition Statements:  If a
resource lacks an edition statement but it is known to contain
significant changes from other editions, supply a brief statement in the
language and script of the title proper and enclose it in square
brackets.?  LC Policy Statements (LCPSs) are the RDA parallels to AACR2
LC Rule Interpretations (LCRIs)." (Jay Weitz)

I had not noticed this before, but it means that, in most of the cases I
deal with, I should have been writing those bracketed 250s in Latin. Has
everybody else been doing this?

William Schupbach
Wellcome Library, 183 Euston Road, London NW1 2BE
E-mail: w.schupbach at wellcome.ac.uk

Visit the Wellcome Library Blog at: http://wellcomelibrary.blogspot.com


********


This message has been scanned for viruses by Websense Hosted Email
Security - www.websense.com

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20101115/e84e4951/attachment.htm