[DCRM-L] DPC on manufacture elements - final(?)(!) rule edits, with one example change

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Jain et al.,

What I object to is the example being accepted as part of the new text. Perhaps individual modules can have include [S.l. s.n.] examples for that rule, but not make that example binding on the rest of the modules.

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



-----Original Message-----
From: Fletcher, Jain [mailto:jfletchr at library.ucla.edu]
Sent: Monday, 15 October 2012 14:42
To: 'DCRM Revision Group List'; 'bsc at rbms.info'
Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] DPC on manufacture elements - final(?)(!) rule edits, with one example change

Hi, Deborah,
   The rule you cite from DCRM(B) has been in place, almost nearly the same way in AACR2 from its beginning (see 1.4C6). Yet, despite this, AACR2 gives a rule much like the one I'm proposing that would also seem the "contradict" that same rule. The rule is 1.4G1: "If the name of the publisher is unknown and the place and name of the manufacturer are found in the item, give the place and name of the manufacturer."  Their example is: "[S.l. : s.n.], 1970 (London : High Fidelity Sound Studios)". So, according to rule 1.4C6, "London" could be imposed, but AACR2 does not suggest that.
   Now, what I've been trained about this issue, is that AACR2's point is that this Mfr statement is more information than nothing; beyond that, it's cataloger's judgment as to whether or not one wishes to invoke (or impose) the rule that inserts a broad to very broad jurisdiction into the PubPl element, when more exact information can be recorded via the manufacturer statement. Rather than inserting potentially incorrect guesses, the cataloger gives exactly what s/he finds on the item and assumes the user can extrapolate as well as anyone can with it. Most of the time, it is my own judgment to let the user extrapolate, since some users would not necessarily realize that, say, "[Britain]" wasn't actually on the item.  From the cataloging I've done in this later period, I will also note that the majority of catalogers who have Mfr info let said info speak for itself. My feeling is that we need this rule to give catalogers a chance to exercise their judgment (rather than not have a place for it at all, as was formerly the case).
                                                        Thanks, Jain

Jain Fletcher
       Principal Cataloger & Head, Cataloging Section Collection Management Division Library Special Collections

-----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 15, 2012 10:54 AM
To: 'DCRM Revision Group List'
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DPC on manufacture elements - final(?)(!) rule edits, with one example change

I realize the voting is open and the document must be approved or not as is, I want to register that the final [S.l. s.n.] example violates both the spirit and the letter of DCRM(B) 4B12; see especially 4B12.2.

4B12.2.
If no city of publication, distribution, etc., can be conjectured, supply the name of a state, province, country, or other larger geographic entity as the place of publication, distribution, etc., with a question mark if necessary, using a modern English form of the name, if there is one, all in square brackets.
[Canada]
[Surrey?]
[Prussia?]
[South America?]


4B12.4.
If no place of publication, distribution, etc., can be supplied, use the abbreviation "s.l." (sine loco) in square brackets.

Proper application of 4B12 would result in

[Europe], or even [Europe?] for the very timid.



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


-----Original Message-----
From: Manon Theroux [mailto:manon.theroux at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 09 October 2012 19:19
To: Fletcher, Jain
Cc: DCRM Revision Group List; bsc at rbms.info
Subject: Re: DPC on manufacture elements - final(?)(!) rule edits, with one example change

In Case of Doubt question: Personally, I think the "generally assume ..." statement in 4A6.2.1 functions just fine as an "in case of doubt"
instruction. Generally transcribe the manufacturer as a publisher, etc., unless you know (or judge) it to be functioning solely as a manufacturer.

But if others think an "in case of doubt" instruction is needed, here are some things I don't like about the text that has been proposed:
- "publisher" should be "publisher, distributor, etc." following DCRM style
- "agency" might imply a corporate body - some manufacturers are named individuals
- "whether a named agency is a publisher or a manufacturer": The choice isn't publisher vs. manufacturer. We already know we're dealing with a manufacturer. It's more whether it is a manufacturer vs. a manufacturer also functioning as a publisher, distributor, etc.

Split infinitive question: I confess it never bothered me, but I'd be okay with changing "to also be functioning as" to either "also to be functioning as" or "to be functioning also as"

Formatting: Thanks, Jain!

P.S. A plea on behalf of those without a color printer (like me!):
Please consider using underlining to indicate inserted text in Word docs rather than simply using color. That way we can print out a draft in black and white and still see the changes...


On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Fletcher, Jain <jfletchr at library.ucla.edu> wrote:
> Hi, While I think this change may not provide sufficient clarity on
> how to proceed and I worry about how it will be understood down the
> road, I can live with this idea and the suggested text Manon gives in
> 4A6.2.2. I would still like the last rule that I've been suggesting to
> be included as well, so if this version is agreed to, then it would
> become 4A6.2.3: In case of doubt...[etc.]
>
> BTW, is it worth mentioning that there is a split infinitive in the first sentence of 4A6.2.1 that I'd also love to see changed (to: "also to be")? I can continue to bite the bullet on that one if no one else cares...
>
> PS: I've "formatted" the examples on this version so that it is more obvious where each start; I hope it continues to be clearer in succeeding responses, even for those who use "plain text" in their e-mail ...
>
> Jain Fletcher
>        Principal Cataloger & Head, Cataloging Section Collection
> Management Division Library Special Collections
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Manon Theroux [mailto:manon.theroux at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 1:35 PM
> To: Fletcher, Jain; DCRM Revision Group List; bsc at rbms.info
> Subject: Re: DPC on manufacture elements - final(?)(!) rule edits,
> with one example change
>
> I continue to think that we should be able to resolve this in a simpler way. I'd much prefer to keep 4A6.2. as a two-part rule. That is the whole point of the "Generally ... However ..." structure.
> Assuming we want to keep the examples that Jain has proposed, can we
> do this?:  -Manon
>
>
> 4A6. Elements relating to publication, distribution, etc., vs.
> elements relating to manufacture
>
> Consider the wording, layout, and typography of the publication itself when determining the most appropriate place to transcribe information relating to the publication, distribution, etc., area. Keep in mind that statements relating to printing will sometimes be more appropriately transcribed as elements of publication, distribution, etc., and sometimes as elements of manufacture.  Consult the following instructions for guidance.
>
> 4A6.1. Statements relating to publication, distribution, etc., only
>
> If the publication bears only a statement relating to publication,
> distribution, etc., or multiple such statements, transcribe the
> statement(s) according to the instructions in 4B, 4C, and 4D.
>
>         Geneuae : Sumptibus Petri Chouët, 1651
>
>         Viennae : Impensis Joannis Pauli Kraus, bibliopolae
> Viennensis, 1768
>
>         New-York : Sold by D. Felt & Co. ; Boston : Published by Cha's
> Ellms, agent, [1835?]
>
> 4A6.2. Statements relating to manufacture only
>
> 4A6.2.1. If the publication bears only a statement relating to
> manufacture, or multiple such statements, generally assume the
> manufacturer(s) to also be functioning as publisher(s), distributor(s), etc. Transcribe the statement(s) according to the instructions in 4B, 4C, and 4D. Consider the words "place of publication" and "publisher" in those instructions to refer equally to the place of manufacture and name of manufacturer in such cases.
>
>         Moguntiae : In typographeio Ioannis Albini, anno 1602
>
>         Te Philadelphia : Gedrukt bij Hendrik Miller, in de Twede
> Straat, MDCCLXII [1762]
>
>         Albany : Printed by Websters and Skinners ; New-York :
> Stereotyped by G. Bruce, 1822
>
> 4A6.2.2. However, if the manufacturer is known or presumed not to be the publisher, distributor, etc., transcribe the manufacturer statement as such according to the instructions in 4E, 4F, and 4G. If any details relating to publication, distribution, etc., can be determined or reasonably surmised, supply them in square brackets.
>
>         [Boston : New York & Erie Railroad Company, 1856] (Boston :
> Farwells & Forrest, steam job printers, 5 Lindall Street)
>
>         [Ontario? : s.n., 1907] (Edmonton : Jas. E. Richards,
> government printer)
>
>         [S.l. : s.n., 189-?] (Milano : Stamperia Artistica)
>         (Comment: Informational booklet for a traveling event whose
> programming details indicate that the event was to take place in
> various European cities)
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Fletcher, Jain <jfletchr at library.ucla.edu> wrote:
>> Hello, everyone,
>>
>>    I am attaching what I now believe to be the final version of the
>> publisher/manufacturer rule changes, based on the last few
>> suggestions I received. As I've said before, the reason I am sending
>> an attachment is because it is the only way I can be sure that people
>> will see the formatting and the red font I've used to show new/edited
>> text.  I have only made one example change in the rules, the reason
>> for which I discuss under the last area, labeled "DISCUSSION".
>>
>>    I would like to put this out for a vote by no later than the end
>> of this week (the very latest timing: Friday, 10/12), so it would be
>> nice if those interested could take a look at the new example along
>> with my discussion, to let me know if it needs further tweaking.  (I
>> hope
>> not!) Thanks so much for your attention, Jain
>>
>>
>>
>> Jain Fletcher
>> Principal Cataloger & Head, Cataloging Section
>>
>> Collection Management Division
>> Library Special Collections
>> Young Research Library - UCLA Box 951575 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1575
>>
>> v: (310) 794-4096
>> f: (310) 206-1864
>> e: jfletchr at library.ucla.edu
>>
>>