[DCRM-L] (no subject)

[Noble, Richard]

I hesitate even more than Deborah to treat this as any sort of categorical
variant.

Essentially, issue and ideal copy (i.e. standard descriptive criteria for a
distinct bibliographical entity) are coterminous. While the title page is a
privileged--perhaps, in some cases and places,  a somewhat
over-privileged--element of the book, there is no difference of issue or
edition here, and therefore, whether in OCLC or in a formal bibliography,
no justification for a separate record or entry number. This is one
bibliographical entity, which exhibits certain variant states. One sets up
the description by choosing one of the states--perhaps arbitrarily--to
serve as the main description, and notes the variant(s) which lie within
the tolerances of ideal copy description.

Another way of approaching this conceptually is to ask whether the variants
are evidentially significant with respect to the textual or commercial
history of the work as manifested in physical form. In this case, they only
witness to some aspect of the manufacture of this particular
manifestation--whether or not we understand quite what the witness is
trying to tell us.

Yet another approach is to ask oneself: What is the best way to tell the
story of this body of books? Separate records involve much duplication of
information, within which minor distinguishing variation may be almost
completely obscured. In this case, it is better to say: Here's one
edition/one issue, and here's a minor variation of minimal textual or
historical significance that will appear in some copies. Use the 246 to
make sure that your record doesn't get away from someone with  one of the
variants in hand (become an unknown known item).

Maintain your taxonomy free of clutter, i.e. don't bother the user with
irrelevant distinctions. We've got problems enough with ill-advised
attempts to FRBRize the bibliographical chaos that is OCLC, as necessary
distinctions disappear in a cloud of unknowing.

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 Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu>wrote:

>  My hesitation about creating a new record comes from several sources,
> most notably that my copy is clearly of the same setting of type--therefore
> the same edition--the differences do not qualify it as a separate issue,
> and the normative basis for new records in DCRM(B) are different editions
> or issues, but not impressions or states.****
>
> ** **
>
> As Jane W. says, there may be other copies that may actually match my
> state. It's worth pointing out, though, that my state isn't mentioned in
> George Keynes descriptive bibliography of John Ray, and there's a penciled
> note in our copy that says "1st state of 1st ed." I'm inclined to make a
> new record. Thanks to those who replied!   ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Jane Stemp Wickenden
> *Sent:* Thursday, 10 May 2012 17:47
>
> *To:* 'DCRM Revision Group List'
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] (no subject)****
>
>  ** **
>
> Deborah,****
>
> ** **
>
> Just some ideas not being able to hold comparative copies in front of me.*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> If it were me, and I could definitely establish that the text is otherwise
> a match, I would add a note “Variant state of title page with transcription
> Armigeri on title page, also some differences in preliminaries”. But if I
> couldn’t establish that it was a complete match, I would create a new
> record (is it not possible that it is a later state with the errata
> corrected into the text?)****
>
> ** **
>
> How far into the [10] p. of preliminaries do the differences extend? Is it
> possible, for example, that gathers A-C could be described as cancels? (I
> can’t make out the collation from the record). ****
>
> ** **
>
> I wonder if any of the many other recorded copies have actually the same
> version as yours, but have not noticed...****
>
> ** **
>
> Jane****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Jane Wickenden****
>
> Historic Collections Library****
>
> Institute of Naval Medicine****
>
> Alverstoke ****
>
> Gosport****
>
> Hampshire****
>
> PO12 2DL****
>
> ** **
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Deborah J. Leslie
> *Sent:* 10 May 2012 22:25
> *To:* 'DCRM Revision Group List'
> *Subject:* [DCRM-L] (no subject)****
>
> ** **
>
> I can't decide whether to create a new record.****
>
> ** **
>
> http://estc.bl.uk/R7161 ****
>
> ** **
>
> The situation: I have in front of me a copy with the same setting of type
> as represented by the above record, but with a completely different setting
> of the t.p. and some resetting of the preliminaries. This state seems to be
> unknown, and I suspect it's the earlier than either of the two states
> recognized in the ESTC record, since it has no errata at the end of the
> preface. ****
>
> ** **
>
> The problem: In my copy, the title transcribes differently. "Francisci
> Willughbeij Armigeri" instead of "Francisci Willughbeii [but should be
> Willughbeij acc. to practice of the printer] Armig." My copy doesn't
> qualify as a new edition or issue, just a variant state of preliminaries.
> But the difference in title proper transcription gives me pause. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Thoughts? Advice?****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> 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  ****
>
> ** **
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20120511/cb53b272/attachment.htm