[DCRM-L] Fwd: DPC: Clarify and simplify wording in 4C10

[Carpenter, Jane]

Dear Colleagues,
I'm in agreement with Manon and Stephen that we leave the original wording of 4C10 intact. We've promised LC an updated version of DCRMB which incorporates only those DCRMB rule changes that have already been proposed and approved, and given the time pressure, I think we should do just that.  New changes can be proposed at Midwinter or online over the next months, and discussed with greater deliberation.   

Jane C.

-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen A Skuce
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 11:26 AM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Fwd: DPC: Clarify and simplify wording in 4C10

Does the difference in prescribed sources really matter here?

Why should we care which source a statement is drawn from, as long as it IS a prescribed source for the specific material being cataloged?

But I think Deborah's right. It seems that DCRM(S) was in need of another rule. That's fine, but we were probably mistaken when we determined that the new rule in (S) should actually replace an existing rule in (B). The rules cover two different situations. One is not a replacement for the other.

The immediate question is whether (B) needs two rules instead of one. Perhaps 4C10 in (B) should simply remain as it was in the second printing. If there were time, we could consider adding a rule similar to the rule in (S) -- though time is very short for revisions to (B). 

In the current tight timeframe, I'd prefer that we return to the original (B) wording of 4C10 for this reprint of (B). The rule doesn't seem to me to be broken.

The question will then become whether both (B) and (S) need two rules, where each now has only one.

Stephen

  

-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 1:57 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Cc: Gillis, Jane
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Fwd: DPC: Clarify and simplify wording in 4C10

That's a huge difference in definition of prescribed sources between B
and S. Could S have an extra rule to cover both situations, while
leaving B with the rule for supplying the statement if transcribed
elsewhere? 

-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Ann Copeland
Sent: Monday, 17 October 2011 13:44
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Cc: Gillis, Jane
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Fwd: DPC: Clarify and simplify wording in 4C10

I agree with Manon that if possible we should split the rule to cover 
publisher name (with example in S) as well as publisher statement (use 
example from B). Two different concepts. And both situations could 
confuse a cataloger.

For serials, I am fairly sure we would have used what CPSO suggested 
because of the prescribed sources being so different for serials, as 
Jane notes. I agree with Bob that the "short identifiable form" do 
harken back to previous rules for representing bodies, but I think that 
the examples assist greatly in this regard.

Annie

On 10/17/2011 12:59 PM, Gillis, Jane wrote:
> I have searched my emails and I have found the following in the CPSO
comments 7/31/2008):
>
>
> 4C10, ex.: This also is probably the same language as DCRM(B). So,
either leave as is or here is a possible change to the rule:
> If the name of the publisher, distributor, etc., does not appear in
the publisher, distributor, etc., statement, but has already been
transcribed as part of another area, supply it in a short identifiable
form within square brackets.
>
>
> I must say this is not one that I really remember talking a lot about.
I will look further.  This also might be complicated by the prescribed
sources of information.  In B the publisher, etc. statement can come
from the tp, colophon, other prelims or dust jacket.  In S the
publisher, etc. statement can come from the whole publication.
>
> Jane
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu]
On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 12:29 PM
> To: DCRM Revision Group List
> Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Fwd: DPC: Clarify and simplify wording in 4C10
>
> Would this do the trick? S editors in particular, please verify:
>
> 4C10. Publisher, distributor, etc., transcribed as part of another
area
>
> If a publisher, distributor, etc., statement has been transcribed as
> part of another area, supply it in a short identifiable form within
> square brackets.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu]
On
> Behalf Of Manon Theroux
> Sent: Sunday, 16 October 2011 17:03
> To: DCRM Revision Group List
> Subject: [DCRM-L] Fwd: DPC: Clarify and simplify wording in 4C10
>
> Apologies, Deborah, but I don't remember discussing this particular
> proposed change. I only remember a discussion about the meaning of the
> word "statement". I don't think the proposed wording is an
> improvement, personally, and I think it changes the meaning of the
> instruction.
>
> The word "information" seems too general. It is only the name of the
> publisher, etc., that we are supposed to supply. The proposed text
> makes it sound like any publisher info transcribed as part of another
> area can be supplied in the 260 - e.g. an address, etc.
>
> What we maybe should have discussed is how the rule changed from
> DCRM(B) to DCRM(S), which is why the revised text is listed in the
> Editorial Guidelines to begin with. In B, the rule only applied if
> there was no separable publisher statement to transcribe in the 260.
> In S, it seems to only apply when there is a separable statement to
> transcribe but that statement doesn't include the name of the
> publisher.
>
> Do we need a revision that incorporates both situations? Although one
> could argue that 4C8 allows you to supply a name when there is no
> statement, it also requires you to make a note justifying the supplied
> name. In 4C10, if we don't have a separable statement to transcribe,
> we will want to supply the name in the 260, but a note won't be needed
> because the rest of the description makes it obvious where the name
> came from.
>
> Manon
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Deborah J. Leslie<DJLeslie at folger.edu>
> Date: Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 3:39 PM
> Subject: [DCRM-L] DPC: Clarify and simplify wording in 4C10
> To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
>
>
> DCRM(B) 2nd printing has this version:
>
> 4C10. Publisher, distributor, etc., transcribed as part of another
area
>
> If no publisher, distributor, etc., statement appears in the
> publication, but the name of the publisher, distributor, etc., has
> already been transcribed as part of another area, supply it in a short
> identifiable form within square brackets.
>
>
>
> Replacement text per the DCRM Editorial Guidelines:
>
> "If the name of the publisher, distributor, etc., does not appear in
> the publisher, distributor, etc., statement, but has already been
> transcribed ..."
>
>
>
> While Erin, Manon and I were discussing this rule because of continued
> confusion in the wording, we came up with what we thought was much
> clearer and better language, and eliminated any confusion. We propose
> 4C10 1st paragraph to read thus:
>
>
>
> 4C10. Publisher, distributor, etc., transcribed as part of another
area
>
> If publisher, distributor, etc., information has been transcribed as
> part of another area, supply it in a short identifiable form within
> square brackets.
>
>
>
> As a proposed change to standard DCRM text, this requires BSC vote.
>
>
>
> Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. | Head of Cataloging, Folger
Shakespeare
> Library
>
> djleslie at folger.edu | 202.675-0369 | www.folger.edu
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>