[DCRM-L] DPC: relocating and editing confusing example in DCRMB7B10.3

[Noble, Richard]

I heartily agree with Stephen, principally because the underlying approach,
regardless of any imperative to minimize the number and character count of
notes, favors clarity of information. I wish that the notes in question
could be reduced to less tightly prescriptive guidelines, in this case
regarding the graphics or other nontextual content of the book/manifestation
in hand. If one wishes to emphasize technique, or note the range of elements
in which a technique has been used, don't scatter--consolidate and tell the
story.

But I have largely given up on these discussions, because I think we are
pursuing a will-o-the-wisp, when we're not perfectly aligning the deck
chairs on the Titanic. The attempt to produce the impeccably anonymous,
perfectly generic record is one I long ago gave up on, after seeing how
often it devolved into withholding and fragmenting a potentially coherent
account--frustrated, that is, any attempt to be truly descriptive, to relate
(yes, as succinctly as possible of course) process, structure, and
intellectual content in a way that makes sense and reflects an understanding
of how a given book works, and how it relates to other books.

The kerfuffle over the 250 field for concealed editions was what finally
turned me off this whole crazy project. What it was once impracticable to
discover about a book--in, let's say, 1990--it is now often possible to
determine with a half-hour's intense exploitation of online resources, in
the process perhaps dispelling all sorts of nonsense that resulted from
dealing with these things in isolation. I want to report those findings, and
flag them, and indicate sources. (Unsourced statements in catalog records
are the bane of my existence--I end up screaming at the screen, "How do you
*know* that??") Sometimes I have to loosen the buckles on the AACR/DCRM
strait jacket.

Yes, the rules do, *inter alia*, provide a consistent structure for
descriptive data, which is immensely valuable; but they can, if overdrawn,
distract the wise and provide cover for the foolish. In this forum, I know
that I'm addressing/ranting at the wise, and with apologies beforehand will
revert to lurking and muttering to myself, because I haven't got the time to
puzzle my head over perfectly fitted fill-in-the-blanks notes, and I don't
think you have either.

But still, blessings upon you all for caring so much about the work, in the
face of an uncaring world.

RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-3384 : RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU


2011/10/28 Stephen A Skuce <skuce at mit.edu>

> There's the added weight of the glossary entry for "Illustration," which
> explicitly excludes head- and tail-pieces, initials, and ornaments.  So the
> specific "Woodcuts" example at 7B10.3 in DCRM(B) is far from ideal, since
> the rule is concerned with "details of illustrations."****
>
> ** **
>
> I agree with the proposal by Jane and Nina: delete the "Woodcuts" example
> from 7B10.3, reword it (remove "ill.") and move it to 7B10.1****
>
> ** **
>
> The fact remains that we want our notes to be as succinct, and as few in
> number, as possible. Thus in the real world, I think it IS a good idea to
> combine "ill." and "initials" in a note about, say, the woodcuts in a
> volume. Creating two separate notes in such an instance seems
> user-unfriendly. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Jane and Nina's proposal doesn't forbid such best-practice. It simply
> leaves such a formulation up to the cataloger, and removes the ambiguity
> introduced by that badly-placed example.****
>
> ** **
>
> Stephen****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Deborah J. Leslie
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 27, 2011 3:48 PM
> *To:* DCRM Revision Group List
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] DPC: relocating and editing confusing example in
> DCRMB7B10.3****
>
> ** **
>
> There's a little ambiguity about ornaments and such. Although they are
> illustrative, they are not to be considered illustrations for the purpose of
> the 300‡b. So yes, either move the examples to 7B10.1, or change the wording
> on 7B10.3 to "Give fuller details of illustrative elements ..."****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. | Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare
> Library | 201 East Capitol St., S.E. | Washington, D.C. 20003
> djleslie at folger.edu | 202.675-0369 | http://www.folger.edu  ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
> Behalf Of Carpenter, Jane****
>
> Sent: Wednesday, 26 October 2011 20:04****
>
> To: DCRM Revision Group List****
>
> Subject: [DCRM-L] DPC: relocating and editing confusing example in
> DCRMB7B10.3****
>
> ** **
>
> Dear Colleagues,****
>
> ** **
>
> While working on the new edition of Examples to Accompany DCRM(B), Nina
> Schneider and I went back and forth on which rule to use—7B10.1 or 7B10.3--
> to justify notes describing ornamental initials, and publishers’ and
> printers’ devices.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Rule 5C1.3 clearly states: “Do not regard ornaments (e.g., head-pieces,
> vignettes, tail-pieces, printers’ devices), pictorial covers, or pictorial
> dust jackets as illustrations.  If considered important, these may be
> mentioned in a note (see 7B10).”  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Although ornaments should not be considered as illustrations, the sample
> note for describing ornaments appears under 7B10.3, the rule dealing with
> illustrations: “Give fuller details of the illustrations, if considered
> important….”****
>
> ** **
>
> Current text of second example in 7B10.3:****
>
> ** **
>
> Woodcuts: ill., initials, publisher’s and printer’s devices.****
>
> ** **
>
> Proposed change:****
>
> • Delete the above example from 7B10.3****
>
> • Revise wording of the sample note, and move it to 7B10.1, which governs
> notes on important physical details****
>
> ** **
>
> Woodcuts: initials, publisher’s and printer’s devices.****
>
> ** **
>
> Any objections?  Improvements?****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks for your feedback,****
>
> Nina Schneider, Editor of Examples to Accompany DCRM(B)****
>
> Jane Carpenter****
>
> ** **
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20111028/e86420d3/attachment.htm