[DCRM-L] DPC for Area 4, manufacture elements

[Manon Theroux]

I pretty much agree with everything Deborah says. The revision to
4A6.2.2 that she supports is exactly what I proposed during the BSC
meeting at ALA Annual (when Jain first raised the issue).

I should say that in August, after thinking some more about it, I made
a follow-up suggestion to Jain privately, proposing the following
revision of 4A6.2.2 (which is only slightly different than what I
proposed at ALA Annual):

PROPOSED
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
the identity of the publisher, distributor, etc., can be determined or
reasonably surmised, supply the name of the publisher, distributor,
etc., in square brackets.

CURRENT
4A6.2.2. However, if the manufacturer is known not to be the
publisher, distributor, etc., and the identity of the publisher,
distributor, etc., can be determined or reasonably surmised, supply
the name of the publisher, distributor, etc., in square brackets and
transcribe the manufacturer statement as such according to the
instructions in 4E, 4F, and 4G.

--
Manon Théroux
Head of Technical Services
U.S. Senate Library
SR-B15 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-3833


On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu> wrote:
> I agree with others that DCRM needs to provide a way to transcribe
> manufacturer-only information when it is clearly not a publisher and the
> publisher is unknown.
>
>
>
> I have severe reservations about adding any text to the rules that make a
> distinction between hand-press and machine-press. We all worked very hard to
> avoid that when writing DCRM(B), with Area 4 being the most crucial part of
> the rules in that regard.
>
>
>
> According to 4B1.2.2, an example of a manufacturer only should not have
> “[S.l.]” in the place of publication if we know where the manufacturer is
> located, since that place could be used as the basis for a conjecture.
>
>
>
> I like Kate’s idea very much of adding the instruction to 4A, where such an
> instruction fits very nicely and leaving 4E,F,&G alone. Although Jain
> considered and rejected the idea of simply removing the portion of the rule
> that specifies supplying a known publisher, I think it works quite well.
> (I’m including all of 4A.6 below for convenience’ sake), even though I’m
> only proposing a change to the text of 4A6.2.2. )
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> Edmonton : Jas. E. Richards, government printer, 1907
>
>
>
> 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 not to be the publisher, distributor,
> etc., transcribe the manufacturer statement as such according to the
> instructions in 4E, 4F, and 4G.
>
>
>
> [Boston : New York & Erie Railroad Company, 1856] (Boston : Farwells &
> Forrest, steam job printers, 5 Lindall Street)
>
>
>
> [Akron, Ohio? : s.n., 1912?] (Akron, Ohio : Printed by Superior Printing)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
> Behalf Of Kate Moriarty
> Sent: Thursday, 13 September, 2012 14:51
>
>
> To: DCRM Revision Group List
> Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DPC for Area 4, manufacture elements
>
>
>
> Hi Jain,
>
>
>
> Thanks for putting this together. Here are my thoughts on the two proposed
> changes.
>
>
>
> Proposed Change 1:
>
> I agree with you that it's worth retaining rule 4A.6.2.2 as is so that there
> are instructions on supplying publisher, etc. information when it can be
> determined. But I like the idea of keeping the suggested new rule with the
> other general instructions in 4A. What about this: Follow rule 4A6.2.2. with
> a new rule, 4A6.2.3, that includes some of your wording.
>
>
>
>
>
> 4A6.2.3. If the manufacturer is known not to be the publisher, distributor,
> etc., and some or all of the details about the publisher, distributor, etc.
> are unknown, transcribe the manufacturer statement as such according to the
> instructions in 4E, 4F, and 4G.
>
>
>
> [S.l. : s.n., 1856] (Boston : Farwells & Forrest, steam job printers, 5
> Lindall Street)
>
>
>
>
>
> Proposed Change 2:
>
> One of the examples under 4A6.2.1 has a date of 1907 so it appears that this
> rule was not meant to be exclusively for hand-press material. Additionally,
> changing it would make the "However" in 4A6.2.2 ambiguous: does it refer to
> only hand-press publication without publisher, distributor, etc., statements
> or to all material? I think it can stand as it is.
>
>
>
> -Kate
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Erin Blake <EBlake at folger.edu> wrote:
>
> Just a quick note to say I do have thoughts about this, but am up against a
> deadline at the moment. Will weigh in later this week.
>
>
>
>    Erin.
>
>
>
> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
> Behalf Of Fletcher, Jain
> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 12:31 PM
> To: DCRM Revision Group List
> Subject: [DCRM-L] DPC for Area 4, manufacture elements
>
>
>
> Hello, everyone,
>
>    Attached you will find discussion of an issue that I brought up at the
> BSC June 22 meeting in Anaheim.  As I say at the beginning of it, it has 3
> parts: 1) existing or draft rule texts to aid in discussion (these will also
> sometimes have yellow highlights, so you will know those are not the actual
> proposed texts); 2) discussion and 3) at the very end, a summary of the
> actual proposed texts. These last will be obvious, because I have
> “simulated” a tracked-changes document by using red font for the proposed
> changes.
>
>    The proposal goes so far as to suggest rule number changes at the end of
> Area 4 (with reasons given in the discussion portion), but I know that this
> is a bigger issue than most of us would like to touch, so I am very open to
> suggestion of other ways to approach the rule numbering in that section,
> without removing the added text in that area, which I think is crucial (and
> hope you agree).
>
>    I would also suggest that, despite my attempts to help the reading by
> including existing DCRM(B) text, people would benefit by looking at DCRM(B)
> and even glancing at AACR2 (when prompted in the discussion) while reading.
>
>    I am interested in everyone’s comments about this issue, and hope that
> the DCRM editors will lend their experience with these rule issues to the
> discussion.
>
> --Jain