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

Manon Theroux manon.theroux at gmail.com
Tue Nov 16 17:19:02 MST 2010


oops, minor correction: Instead of "material" the DCRM(B) text
actually has "publication".

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Manon Theroux <manon.theroux at gmail.com> wrote:
> The area 4 instructions are covered by the exception list in the
> general rule on interpolations within areas. In AACR2 it's under 1.0E.
> Language and script of the description:
>
> 1.0E1.
> In the following areas, give information transcribed from the item
> itself in the language and script (wherever practicable) in which it
> appears there:
> --Title and statement of responsibility
> --Edition
> --Publication, distribution, etc.
> --Series
> ... In general, give interpolations into these areas in the language
> and script of the other data in the area. Exceptions to this are:
> a) prescribed interpolations and abbreviations
> b) general material designations (see 1.1C)
> c) supplied forms of the place of publication (see 1.4C2, 1.4C3, and 1.4C6)
> d) statements of function of the publisher, distributor, etc. (see 1.4E).
>
> In DCRM(B), it's under:
>
> 0F1.1. In the following areas, transcribe information from the
> material itself in the language and script (wherever feasible) in
> which it appears there:
> -- title and statement of responsibility
> -- edition
> -- publication, distribution, etc.
> -- series
> 0F1.2. Give interpolations into these areas in the language and script
> of the other information in the area, except for prescribed
> interpolations and other cases specified in these rules (e.g., 4B5,
> 4B6.2, 4C6.2) ...
> ==
>
> If we wanted to change the area 2 rule to allow supplied edition
> statements and we wanted them to be supplied in the language of the
> cataloging agency, we could add the area 2 rule # to the exception
> list here (though a supplied edition statement might be stretching the
> definition of an interpolation within an area, since there would be no
> other info in area 2 in that case!).
>
> -Manon
>
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Gillis, Jane <jane.gillis at yale.edu> wrote:
>> Why don’t/can’t the same rules apply to the 250 as apply to the 260.  In the
>> 260, we supply any information, not in the piece but known, in brackets and
>> in the language of the cataloging agency.  This is not a question of the
>> rules, but of the principles.  If rules/interpretations in the past have
>> gotten this wrong, why can’t we correct this now?
>>
>>
>>
>> Jane
>>
>>
>>
>> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
>> Behalf Of Noble, Richard
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 10:10 AM
>> To: DCRM Revision Group List
>> Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] RDA Follow-up to "Cataloging Defensively" Webinar re
>> edition statements
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree 100% with Deborah. In the final analysis, the 250 is an important
>> carrier of information regarding identification and distinction of
>> manifestations. Its content and its very presence justify the creation of a
>> separate record, which cannot be done reliably at the 5XX level when the
>> preceding levels are identical, or perhaps only even nearly identical, given
>> OCLC's wide tolerances in the matching protocols for statements of extent--a
>> case where descriptive ambiguity leads to conflation.* At base, the greater
>> precision of transcription and physical description in the dcrm's is to
>> support the identification of entities and provide evidence to account for
>> their relationships. What we're talking about is the very basic problem of
>> making evidence evident, and incorporating it into the database in such a
>> way that the relationships are properly embodied in the structure of the
>> records.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Yes, I know that absence of an edition statement does not in itself justify
>> creation of a new OCLC record, all other things being equal. But "all other
>> things" may amount to very little indeed.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 5:49 PM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> We had just such a situation today, with 1903 "ordinary" and "fine paper"
>> issues of As you like it. I put quotes around "ordinary" because it is in
>> fact a beautiful volume with t.p. in red, thick, untrimmed paper, and large
>> margins and font. The "fine paper" issue, however, is not on paper at all,
>> but on "Imperial Japan vellum" and has hand-colored illustration and
>> decorations. The two issues are the same size and setting of type.
>>
>>
>>
>> Our solution: supply an edition statement to record for the fine copy:
>> [Imperial Japan vellum issue] with a supporting note, and a reciprocal note,
>> but without a supplied edition statement, on the other.
>>
>>
>>
>> This was easy, because we were able to take verbiage from the volume itself.
>> One of the reasons I have been reluctant to embrace supplied edition
>> statements is not just that it's polluting the function of the 250, but
>> because of the difficulty of coming up with clear, succinct, and accurate
>> edition statements without help from the resource or from bibliographers. A
>> solution for rare English books might be to supply the STC, Wing, or ESTC
>> number in brackets as an edition statement, in addition to its use in field
>> 510.  I'm having a harder time thinking about supplying edition statements
>> for non-English books.
>>
>>
>>
>> Can we, as a community, keep our minds and options open as we contemplate
>> how to accommodate RDA? That is, I hope we can keep the possibility of
>> supplying edition statements, square-bracketed, in English, on the table.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 16:47
>>
>> To: DCRM Revision Group List
>> Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] RDA Follow-up to "Cataloging Defensively" Webinar re
>> edition statements
>>
>>
>>
>> The difficulty with the supplied edition statement is that it has to be
>> given in the language of the item--essentially in the form of such an
>> edition statement as the original might have contained. I may be
>> exaggerating the difficulty of doing so; but in many cases any sort of
>> conventional designation wouldn't really make sense. On the other hand, I'm
>> willing to be counselled otherwise--that any sort of statement one can come
>> up with will at least suffice to prevent a merge, and then you can explain
>> more fully in the note.
>>
>>
>>
>> The whole question arose for me in the context of concealed editions, which
>> in many cases can't be prioritized, so that you need to name the edition in
>> an unfamiliar tongue, not just number it; and there are languages in which
>> the cognates of "edition" and equivalents of "issue"have very slippery
>> meanings--often only designating an invariant impression that would not
>> require a separate record. Am I looking for the equivalent of serial
>> "complexity" notes? A "bibliographical relationship complexity" note that
>> nevertheless is tagged in such a way as to permit automatic merge-blocking.
>> The real problem is the burying of a fundamental manifestation distinction
>> in the data structure ("concealed editions" means "concealed in the
>> catalog") in practice; combined with the difficulty of imitating an edition
>> statement that doesn't exist.
>>
>> RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY
>> PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-3384 : RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU
>>
>>
>



More information about the DCRM-L mailing list