[DCRM-L] (no subject)

[Noble, Richard]

The question is not whether the facts are important or unimportant, but
whether one wishes to introduce a distinction of entities based on them. It
is more or less agreed that the basic entity in the taxonomy of books is
the issue. I would therefore argue that rules which over-privilege the
title page in this way, regardless of its bearing on the identification of
one entity as against another, are intellectually suspect, and largely a
sop to ignorance, since most library cataloguers are ill-equipped to
analyze the situation bibliographically.

That there are are other variants in the preliminaries is of some
interest--those too must be noted--but if they are merely evidence that
parts of the preliminaries exist in different settings of type which appear
to reflect no intention to produce a distinct unit of publication, we
should seek ways to unify the description of the actual unit of
publication, in part for the sake of being able to account coherently for
variations of state. The pragmatics of the situation may vary, of course:
OCLC is a crude bibliographical instrument in this respect (though
certainly not in others)--I am more often frustrated by the fact that it
cannot always reflect different units of publication--e.g. perfectly
line-for-line silent reprint editions from originals.

Since, however, in the present case, one could unify the description
properly (assuming that we really are talking about a single issue) while
ensuring retrieval of all variants via the indexing of those not chosen for
the title field, my prejudice is against creating separate records,  which
will only end up, down the line, with incorrect holdings anyway.

Somebody please tell a joke ... this is way too serious a tone for me to
take on a Friday afternoon (before I go off to torture poor Winston Smith
in a stage adaptation of 1984--maybe I could just read this correspondence
to him ... )

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 4:44 PM, John Lancaster <jjlancaster at me.com> wrote:

> I hesitate to take issue with either Deborah or Richard, but I’d point out
> again that OCLC’s criteria for justification of a new record explicitly
> mention - as the only specific title evidence mentioned for rather than
> against creating a new record - difference in the title proper.
>
> I’m also not sure why the textual or commercial history of a work or its
> manifestations should be so completely privileged over the manufacturing
> history.  In fact, one reason for the creation of the specialized
> cataloguing rules we work with was specifically to provide more information
> about the physical (i.e. production) aspects of the books we catalogue.  In
> this case, in addition to the two words on the title page that differ,
> there is some unspecified amount of variation in the preliminaries -
> perhaps only typographic and not textual, but nevertheless worth noting.
>
> In other words, I’m not convinced that the distinctions here are
> irrelevant (despite agreeing with Richard’s final sentence) - relevance
> depends on who the “user” is imagined to be.  (I’m actually as much
> interested in the comment that the printer’s practice is to spell the name
> “Willughbeij” - the form used in this variant.)  I wonder if any of the
> copies of the 1743 reissue (or those with the 1740 index added, but without
> the 1743 cancel title) have the variant preliminaries.
>
> If the record is properly crafted (in this case, I imagine that would mean
> with appropriate notes), I don’t see any danger that the distinguishing
> variations will be obscured.
>
> Taxonomists in every field range from lumpers to splitters (terms coined
> by Darwin) - we see it every day in the way we and our colleagues structure
> our folders on our computers - and there will probably never be an end to
> it.  This case strikes me as being on the border, and I guess I lean toward
> the splitters in this case.  I think the differences are more interesting
> than the similarities.
>
> John Lancaster
>
>
> On May 11, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Noble, Richard wrote:
>
> 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/20120511/652e0ed0/attachment-0001.htm