[DCRM-L] DPC on manufacture elements - final(?) rule edits, with commentary

[Deborah J. Leslie]

>From Jain’s comments:


For this same reason, I have also thought a lot about Deborah’s assertion that, due to rule 4B12.2, there should be never be any instances of [S.l. : s.n.], because being given the place where the manufacturer worked should be reason enough to supply that as a conjecture for the location of the publisher. However, as someone who has taken note of the many instances where items have both publisher statements and manufacturer statements, I have observed that manufacturers often work in different cities, and sometimes even different states or provinces, depending on how close to the border the publisher is to the manufacturer. Not that I have done research on this, but my guess is that the rise of the Industrial Age made it economically feasible (or even desirable) to contract jobs to manufacturers in industrialized cities or areas, especially those along rail lines. Therefore, especially in the 19th century, I often have doubts about whether or not a publisher was located in the same town as the manufacturer. In fact, it is exactly for this reason that the [S.l. : s.n.] accommodation needs to be made; my feeling about how to treat this is much like Richard rule #1: “Do not mislead”; rather, let each “side” of the publisher statement speak for itself.



So, on that note, I looked again at the rule that Kate had mentioned as not quite fitting (the one dated 1907) and I found it to be sort of a perfect example of what both Deborah and I are talking about.  In that case, the government is the publisher, but the printer identification is probably most commonly used to identify that fact. Still, taken to its strictest form, it should perhaps be handled the way I have shown it in my first example for 4A6.2.3, according to our rules, despite long-term acceptance of the treatment as government printers somehow representing the government. (I don’t actually know anything about the seat of government for Ontario, so this is just my stab for the current purpose, using the province as the location; someone who knows in which city the government is located would add that location in brackets in the place element).  On the other hand, the next example in 4A6.2.3 was cobbled from the 4th example in rule 4A6.2.1--which itself seems to be a little unclear as to location(s)--again for the purpose of giving an example for that situation.  In both cases, better examples should probably be found.


I’m mostly happy with how this DPC has been hammered out. But I must say that I don’t see any justification for “S.l.” in the new example.


[S.l. : s.n., 1822] (New-York : Stereotyped by G. Bruce)

Remember that we can use a “?” for uncertainty, and given that we can conjecture a country or even a continent for place of publication, well, I cannot imagine an instance where a cataloger cannot conjecture even a continent. Even the most timid of catalogers should feel confident in conjecturing, at the very least, [North America?] for the 260‡a (although I would feel not the least compunction about conjecturing New York in this example.)

Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. | Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare Library
djleslie at folger.edu<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> | 202.675-0369 | www.folger.edu



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20120925/797c8ee0/attachment.htm>