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

Laurence Creider lcreider at lib.NMSU.Edu
Wed Nov 17 15:44:22 MST 2010


Lenore raises some good points.  I've also got a concern with supplying 
edition statements that does not seem to have bothered anyone else, but 
FWIW ....

The lack of controlled vocabulary for supplied edition statements, not 
just in terms of source and language of the supplied statement, but more 
crucially in the choice of terms to identify the concealed edition seems 
to lay the way open for the creation of multiple bibliographic "ghosts" as 
well as duplicate records in OCLC.

What we are talking about is making a major rule change or even a MARC 
format change to accommodate the limitations of a system, admittedly a 
huge system.  I don't think that is ever a good idea because the system 
will eventually change or be replaced.  A more justifiable solution is the 
use of a note in the bibliographic description, even though that poses 
problems for those of us (including my library) that do not have 
institutional records and will not.

If the DCRM community does decide to go with the supplied edition 
statement, I think we need to spend time trying to come up with consistent 
phraseology that both librarians and patrons will understand and apply as 
consistently as possible.

Larry

Laurence S. Creider
Special Collections Librarian
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 575-646-7227
Fax: 575-646-7477
lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010, Lenore Rouse wrote:

> 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.


More information about the DCRM-L mailing list