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

Lenore Rouse rouse at cua.edu
Wed Nov 17 06:38:10 MST 2010


  Several language considerations arise regarding interpolated edition 
statements in graphics. First, many graphics have no language, i.e. no 
text component on the item. Language of cataloging agency seems like a 
reasonable default in such cases but I'm open to other suggestions.

Furthermore, many editions (i.e. states) which are supplied from a 
catalogue raisonne present themselves in the language of the reference 
work, neither in the language of the item nor in that of the cataloging 
agency. Translating such statements into either language seems hazardous 
and likely to produce confusion for the user. To complicate matters 
further, many cats. rais. simply say "i of iii" or "I/IV" and omit the 
word for state in any language. It seems reasonable to supply that word 
for the benefit of the user, but in what language? Again, language of 
cataloging agency seems reasonable.

Then there is the problem of the cataloger faced with 2 prints, alike 
but for purely graphic details which have to be described in the 
statement of state, since the cataloger must disambiguate the items 
himself for lack of a published catalog. "Early state with 2 windmills" 
vs "Later state with 3 windmills and cow". Do we want catalogers to have 
to translate that visual info into Dutch because the prints are by a 
Dutch engraver? How about for Japanese woodblock prints? Could get very 
complicated.

These problems have so far proven themselves immune to presentation in a 
neat package - perhaps this is where the "wherever feasible" text could 
provide an escape clause. If not, Jane's suggestion to rethink the 
principles behind this rule seems reasonable especially if it can be 
done before G is wrapped up.
Lenore



On 11/16/2010 7:19 PM, Manon Theroux wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>>

-- 
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




More information about the DCRM-L mailing list