[DCRM-L] Question on DCRM(B) 4B4 supplying fuller place names.

[Manon Theroux]

Lenore,

Personally, I think 4B4 allows for a construction such as
"Norimb[ergae]". It does supply the remainder of the name in square
brackets, which is all that one of the 2 options in the rule requires.
And it does so in the form that the printer presumably would have used
if spelling out the name to begin with. But, as you said, it would be
asking a lot of catalogers to know what exactly to supply and it might
hamper keyword searching in many systems.

I don't recall if the DCRM(B) editors discussed this particular issue.
If we did, we must have decided to leave it to cataloger's judgment. I
do remember a somewhat similar discussion of 4C1.4 in which it was
decided to use the example "Printed for W.W. [i.e. William Welby]"
rather than "Printed for W[illiam] W[elby]" and to make the rule say
"If the ... name can be identified, supply it in square brackets after
the initials" (avoiding DCRB's "filling in" language).

If supplying a fuller form is considered necessary for identification,
would this work?:

Norimb. [i.e. Nuremberg]

based on a combination of:
-- 4B3's instruction to supply the modern form of the place name in
square brackets after the Latin form
-- 4B4's use of "i.e." in examples that show how to expand an
abbreviated form by supplying a full form

Manon

--
Manon Théroux
Head of Technical Services
U.S. Senate Library
SR-B15 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-3833



On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Lenore Rouse <rouse at cua.edu> wrote:
> Supplied fuller forms of place names (4B4)
>
> When supplying the fuller form of an abbreviated Latin place name, should
> the cataloger supply the nominative case or extrapolate to the genitive case
> which was what printers generally used? This question derives from a 1714
> book published in “Norimb.” I.e. modern Nuremberg.  A previous cataloger
> supplied Norimb[ergae] which raises 2 questions.
>
> 1.     This is the genitive (which is the way most – but not all –  printers
> represented the place).   My gut reaction is that it is requiring too much
> of most catalogers to construct the genitive form of the place of
> publication, that doing so would be reading  (unfaithfully?) into the piece,
> and that such a practice could also hamper catalog users.  Maybe this
> question came up during B editing but the instruction in 4B4 doesn’t say
> exactly WHAT form the fuller form should take in such variable situations.
>
> 2.       Also the 4B4 examples of supplied fuller forms of place do not
> insert brackets within a word the way examples in GM do – eg.
> Phila[delphia]. I have vague recollections that this was discussed somewhere
> long ago, and that the brackets in Phila[delphia] or Norimb[ergae] will
> defeat a keyword search and hence such constructions are no longer
> recommended. Is this correct? This item is not retrievable by place of
> publication in my system unless the searcher knows where to insert brackets
> in Norimb[ergae], but would Rio [de Janeiro] as suggested in 4B4 not cause a
> similar problem? Appreciate any clarification on these.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lenore
>
>
> --
> Lenore M. Rouse
> Curator, Rare Books & Special Collections
> 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
>
>