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

Mon Nov 15 10:32:58 MST 2010

Jackie et al.,

The question isn't so much whether MARC  per se is on its last legs. If we
think of it as simply a set of tags or information containers, which already
exists as an XML DTD (have I got that right?), then what we're really
talking about is the degree of granularity necessary to enable or facilitate
the distinction of entities basic to the taxonomy that we've defined via
FRBR, and ways to incorporate relevant information that cannot be developed
from the item alone.

I spoke of edition/issue/impression/state, but these are all subclasses of
"manifestation" in the specific vocabulary of the printed book. If we bear
in mind that the preceding FRBR terms "work" and "expression" are
essentially abstract, we see the importance of clear understanding of
manifestations, actualizations in the absence of which there is neither work
nor expression. Where manifestations differ, our knowledge of the work and
its expressions encompasses variations that must be accounted for, unless we
embrace ignorance as a critical strategy (otherwise known as "retiring from
the field"). This is true for all formats, and the virtue of FRBR is that it
enables to discuss these same issues across formats, in which they are
equally important--and in our work foundational.

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 12:01 PM, dooleyj <dooleyj at oclc.org> wrote:

>  I’m interested to know whether the RBMS Bib Standards Committee has
> investigated possible MARBI receptiveness, and interest from the cataloging
> community, in a field for supplied edition statements. And given that there
> is growing consensus that MARC is on its last legs, not to mention the
> demise of the 503, do you have a sense that a new field is a likely
> solution? -Jackie
>
> --
> Jackie Dooley
> Program Officer
> OCLC Research and the RLG Partnership
>
> 949.492.5060 (work/home) -- Pacific Time
> 949.295.1529 (mobile)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *Deborah Leslie <djleslie at folger.edu>
> *Reply-To: *DCRM-L <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
> *Date: *Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:58:07 -0500
> *To: *DCRM-L <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
>
> *Subject: *Re: [DCRM-L] RDA Follow-up to "Cataloging Defensively" Webinar
> re edition statements
>
> 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<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 <http://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 <http://www.websense.com>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20101115/058bd28d/attachment.htm 