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

[Noble, Richard]

The problem isn't consistent language, but language which can be
unambiguously associated with a specific data tag. This is virtually
impossible in a wide-open free-text field. There may be lots of retrieval,
but very little precision. Once again, I see this as a technical problem
given precedence over a substantive one: tail wags dog. The rules are the
tail; the book, whatever it is, as far as I *can tell* people, is the dog.
Why make the rules self-defeating??

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 Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu>wrote:

> Actually, this is the second reason I'm so opposed to supplying edition
> statements, which is only slightly less distressing than stretching the
> 250's purpose. I don't think we *can* come up with consistent phraseology;
> aside from my suggestion for English books using the STC, Wing, or ESTC
> number, it will have to be language taken either from the item itself
> (unlikely) or a note (e.g., [Large paper issue]), and strictly case-by-case.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
> Behalf Of Laurence Creider
> Sent: Wednesday, 17 November, 2010 17:44
> To: Lenore Rouse
> Cc: DCRM Revision Group List
> Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] RDA Follow-up to "Cataloging Defensively" Webinar re
> edition statements
>
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20101117/5813fb14/attachment.htm