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

[Lenore Rouse]

  I'm not sure I understand the need for a new MARC field either. 
DCRM(G) is being written with a view to putting the supplied edition (or 
state) statements (and they're almost always going to be supplied for 
graphic materials) in the 250, but bracketed like any supplied text and 
with a note giving the source of the state (typically a catalogue 
raisonne). My guess is the need for this might not be so apparent in B 
as it is in G. I would like to hear from editors of other modules who 
might be confronting similar problems.
Lenore

On 11/15/2010 1:25 PM, Manon Theroux wrote:
> I wonder how seriously MARBI would take a request for a new field
> coming from the rare materials community, given that DCRM(B), like
> DCRB before it, does not allow supplied edition statements; our rare
> cataloging rules, for the past two decades at least, have always said
> to put the information in a note. Mightn't MARBI tell us to change our
> cataloging rules first before coming to them pushing for finer
> granularity in MARC tagging? Do we want to do that? Could we do that?
> Do we have a process for amendments to DCRM(B)? So far, we've only
> done corrections to typos, formatting, and slight changes in wording,
> nothing that affects the substance of rules.
>
> I guess we could point to DCRM(G), which presumably will be published
> soon, as justification for such a request; I'm curious: is it the only
> DCRM module to allow supplied edition statements at this point?
>
> Even if we were to change our rules, I'm still not sure I understand
> the need for a new field. If the presence of a 250 field works to
> prevent record merges, why wouldn't we just put the supplied edition
> statement in a 250 field?
>
> Manon
>
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 12:21 PM, John Attig<jxa16 at psu.edu>  wrote:
>> We have not investigated this with MARBI, and I learned long ago not to
>> attempt to predict their reaction to anything, but . . .
>>
>> I think that a distinctive MARC field for supplied edition statements might
>> be a solution to this problem, but I'm not sure of the scope of the problem.
>>
>> First, RDA to the contrary, is there a general consensus (i.e., beyond the
>> DCRM community) that supplied edition statements in the "official" Edition
>> Statement element (field 250) are a bad idea?  My sense is that rare
>> materials catalogers (at least in the DCRM context) are reluctant to supply
>> data not present on the item.  However, it is not clear to me that general
>> catalogers have the same reluctance.  So is this simply a rare materials
>> fix?
>>
>> Second, is there any reason to restrict this to Edition Statements?  I could
>> see the same argument being made for any transcribed data element, and
>> therefore the potential for a number of other fields for supplied
>> statements.
>>
>> I think that MARBI might be open to adding one or more new fields; it seems
>> an obvious extension of the "take what you see" principle that supplied data
>> in a transcribed element be distinctly tagged.  However, several points need
>> to be clarified before they will see this as a problem that needs to be
>> solved.
>>
>>          John
>>
>> On 11/15/2010 12:01 PM, dooleyj 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
> --
> Manon Théroux
> Head of Technical Services
> U.S. Senate Library
> SR-B15 Russell Senate Office Building
> Washington, DC  20510-7112

-- 
Lenore M. Rouse
Curator, Rare Books&  Special Collections
Adjunct Professor, School of Library and Information Science
The Catholic University of America
Room 214, Mullen Library
620 Michigan Avenue N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20064

PHONE: 202 319-5090
E-MAIL: rouse at cua.edu