[DCRM-L] RDA revision proposal -- Publication (etc.) statements

[Elizabeth O'Keefe]

My comments relate solely to production information, and concern the
general issue of how production information is handled in RDA, rather than
the specifics of this proposal, which does a good job of reorganizing the
instructions in a more logical way. Essentially, there is no difference
between the way RDA handles production information for unpublished
resources and publication, manufacture, and distribution information for
published resources. This seems like a carry-over from the days when there
was a single area named the Publication, etc. area. Now they are separate
data elements, but unpublished resources are still being treated exactly
the same as published resources. This is problematic.

Published resources come prepackaged with a meaningful, formally presented
description of the resource that is uniform across all copies of a
particular manifestation. Published resources generally contain information
about publication, distribution, and/or manufacture that is conveyed by
formal statements that mention the function (“Published by X, Printed by Y)
and/or by design and layout conventions (e.g., the name of a corporate body
appearing on the bottom of the title page is normally the publisher). But
few unpublished resources contain production information, and even fewer
present this information as a formal statement. Does the mere occurrence of
a name, place name, or date in an unpublished resource count as a
production statement, or must it be formally presented in order to qualify?
If an autograph letter is signed, does that qualify as part of a production
statement? If a place name or date is inscribed on a drawing or a
photograph, is that regarded as part of the production statement? And if
the resource contains a formal statement of responsibility but no formal
producer statement, but the creator is known to be the producer, can the
same name be transcribed in both places without brackets, or does the name
in the production area need to be bracketed?

The issue is complicated by the fact that production information appearing
on the resource is not necessarily supplied by the producer, or even
contemporaneous with the resource; for example, an artist’s name written on
an art work often represents conjecture or wishful thinking by a former
owner. Transcribing this type of information in the production area gives
the information a spurious credibility, even if it is subsequently
explained in a note.
Having a designated area for recording production information in RDA is a
big advance over AACR2, but the instructions in 2.7, although organized
more logically by the LC proposal, still cannot work well as long as RDA
does not make allowances for fundamental differences between published
resources and unpublished ones.

Liz O'Keefe


On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu>wrote:

>  LC is submitting a proposal to the JSC that would introduce a number of
> significant changes to RDA guidelines concerning Production, Publication,
> Distribution, and Manufacture (RDA 2.7-2.10). The changes are numerous
> enough that I find it hard to offer a summary without exceeding the length
> of the proposal itself, so I offer instead the entire “Background” portion
> of the proposal (below). The full proposal (including the proposed changes
> to the RDA text) can be found here:****
>
> http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-LC-24.pdf****
>
> ** **
>
> Generally, the changes proposed would bring RDA guidelines closer to
> conventions established in DCRM(B) (and subsequent manuals). At first
> glance, I see one potential problem with the way the proposal treats
> grammatically inseparable information belonging to another element; I’ve
> inserted a comment at the relevant portion of the proposal.****
>
> ** **
>
> I hope some of you will have time to scrutinize this and offer your
> comments, which I can pass along through CC:DA. Of the proposals going to
> the JSC in November, this is probably the most relevant to our community.*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> Francis****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Background****
>
> ** **
>
> This proposal offers several changes to instructions within 2.7
> (Production Statement), 2.8 (Publication Statement), 2.9 (Distribution
> Statement), and 2.10 (Manufacture Statement). The proposed changes are
> listed below with the rationale after each.****
>
> ** **
>
> We did not propose changes to the glossary definitions, but they may need
> to be updated as a result of JSC decisions on the glossary definitions and
> scope statements.****
>
> ** **
>
> *Change #1*: Add instruction to 2.7.1.4 about recording statements
> containing inseparable information belonging to another element. Move the
> optional omission for levels of corporate hierarchy from 2.7.1.4 to
> 2.7.4.3. Add a reference at 2.7.4.3 to 21.2 for the producer of an
> unpublished resource.****
>
> ** **
>
> *Rationale*: Currently, there are no instructions within the production,
> publication, distribution, or manufacture elements about recording
> statements that contain grammatically inseparable information belonging to
> another element (e.g., Stereotyped, printed, and sold by H. & E. Phinney).
> While this phenomenon is most often associated with rare materials
> cataloging, it also occurs in modern publications, especially those having
> statements in inflected languages. To split the statements up into multiple
> elements may result in unhelpful, nonsensical data, and challenges the
> principle of representation. Therefore, we have proposed adding such
> instructions for the production, publication, distribution, and manufacture
> elements. ****
>
> ** **
>
> FL comments (apply also to parallel parts of changes 2-4): The proposed
> instructions say to “transcribe the information in the order found.” This
> instruction incompletely echoes DCRM(B) 4A3.3: “…transcribe them in the
> order found and supply missing elements in square brackets as needed (see
> 0G6<https://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=dcrmb0G6&hash=0G6>).”
> What appears lacking are instructions comparable to DCRM(B) 4B8 and 4D1.4,
> which say to *supply* information for these elements (place and date,
> respectively) when the data is transcribed elsewhere (i.e. in the name of
> publisher, etc.). The present LC proposal does not go on to tell us *where
> * to transcribe the inseparable information (i.e. which element). I think
> the proposal needs to introduce language comparable to 2.5.2.6 (which
> treats a grammatically inseparable designation of edition). Does this work?
> Am I missing something? ****
>
> ** **
>
> In addition, we propose to move the Optional Omission for omitting levels
> of corporate hierarchy to the sections on recording the name sub-elements.
> When levels of corporate hierarchy are recorded, they are recorded as part
> of the name (not place or date),so that is where instructions on omitting
> them should be located. Our proposal moves the Optional Omission from
> 2.7.1.4 (Recording Production Statements) to 2.7.4.3 (Recording Producers’
> Names). It does not change the wording of the Optional Omission.****
>
> ** **
>
> Finally, we have noticed that many catalogers confuse these transcribed
> elements in Chapter 2 with the Group 2 entities associated with a
> manifestation in Chapter 21. The former is based on transcription from a
> resource, and the latter expresses the relationship between the entity and
> the manifestation. We propose adding a reference to 21.2 (Producer of an
> Unpublished Resource) at 2.7.4.3 to help clarify this distinction. Cf.
> Changes #2-4 for similar changes to publication, distribution, and
> manufacture statements.****
>
> ** **
>
> *Change #2*: Add instruction to 2.8.1.4 about recording a publication
> statement to improve readability and consistency. Add instruction about
> recording statements containing inseparable information belonging to
> another element. Move the optional omission for levels of corporate
> hierarchy from 2.8.1.4 to 2.8.4.3. Add a reference at 2.8.4.3 to 21.3 for
> the publisher.****
>
> ** **
>
> *Rationale*: We noticed that there is an instruction for recording a
> production statement at 2.7.1.4, but no equivalent instructions for
> publication, distribution, and manufacture. Instead, these sections begin
> with instructions for recording the sub-elements. In a section called
> “Recording X Statements,” it is logical to provide an instruction to record
> the entire statement before instructions for specific parts of the
> statement. We have proposed a sentence paralleling that of 2.7.1.4 for
> instruction on recording publication, distribution, and manufacture
> statements (cf. Changes #3-4). This addition improves readability and
> consistency.****
>
> ** **
>
> See *Change #1* for rationale about adding instruction about recording
> statements containing inseparable information, moving the Optional Omission
> for omitting levels of corporate hierarchy, and adding a reference to 21.3.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> *Change #3*: Add instruction to 2.9.1.4 about recording a distribution
> statement to improve readability and consistency. Add instruction about
> recording statements containing inseparable information belonging to
> another element. Move the optional omission for levels of corporate
> hierarchy from 2.9.1.4 to 2.9.4.3. Add a reference at 2.9.4.3 to 21.4 for
> the distributor.****
>
> ** **
>
> *Rationale*: See Change #2 for rationale to add an instruction at 2.9.1.4
> for recording a distribution statement. See Change #1 for rationale about
> adding instruction about recording statements containing inseparable
> information, moving the Optional Omission for omitting levels of corporate
> hierarchy, and adding a reference to 21.4.****
>
> ** **
>
> *Change #4*: In 2.10.1.4, remove conditions and first optional addition
> for recording manufacture statements so that recording the manufacture
> statement is the basic instruction. Add instruction about recording
> statements containing inseparable information belonging to another element.
> Move the optional omission for levels of corporate hierarchy from 2.10.1.4
> to 2.10.4.3. Add a reference at 2.10.4.3 to 21.5 for the manufacturer.****
>
> ** **
>
> *Rationale*: In addition to changes paralleling those of Changes #1-3, we
> have proposed further revisions to the instructions at 2.10.1.4. We noticed
> a discrepancy between 2.9.1.4 and 2.10.1.4. 2.10.1.4 is very restrictive in
> allowing manufacture statements to be recorded at all and seems to contain
> conditions that are already part of the core element statement at 2.10. We
> think manufacture statements are as useful as distribution statements for
> identifying manifestations, so we propose to make the instructions parallel.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> See also *Change #2* for the rationale of the specific wording of the
> basic recording instruction at 2.10.1.4. See Change #1 for rationale about
> adding instruction about recording statements containing inseparable
> information, moving the “Optional Omission” for omitting levels of
> corporate hierarchy, and  adding a reference to 21.6.****
>
> ** **
>
> *Change #5*: Expand scope statement at 2.7.4.1.****
>
> *Change #6*: Expand scope statement at 2.8.4.1.****
>
> *Change #7*: Expand scope statement at 2.9.4.1.****
>
> *Change #8*: Expand scope statement at 2.10.4.1.****
>
> ** **
>
> *Rationale*: The second group of changes involves expanding the scope
> statement for each of the “name” sub-elements. A producer’s, etc. “name” as
> it appears on the resource may refer to a person, family, or corporate body
> but not actually contain the proper name of a person, etc. In this context,
> the name may be a “characterizing word or phrase” (cf. 9.2.2.25), and there
> may be a statement of function with no name at all (cf. examples proposed
> for 2.8.4.4, 2.9.4.4, and 2.10.4.4). Although there are instructions on
> statements of function under each of the name sub-element instructions, the
> statement of function is not mentioned in the definition of the name. It
> should be included in the scope statements to synchronize the scope and
> instructions hierarchy. We propose the addition of two sentences to the
> scope instruction for the producer’s, etc. names. The first sentence will
> add language about “characterizing word or phrase” as a name. The second
> sentence will add language about a name including a statement of function.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> *Change #9*: Add instruction at 2.7.4.4 for recording statements of
> function with no name. ****
>
> ** **
>
> *Rationale*: Although it seems logical to record a statement of function
> with no name, there are no explicit instructions to do so in 2.7.4.4.
> Statements of function for these Chapter 2 sub-elements are similar in form
> and role to statements of responsibility. These statements of function are
> useful in identifying different manifestations of a work just as statements
> of responsibility are. Also, they may clarify the specific role performed
> by a producer, etc., just as a statement of responsibility might clarify
> the role of a person, etc. in creating or contributing to the content of a
> resource. 2.4.1.9 includes instructions for recording statements of
> responsibility that do not name a specific person, etc., so we propose to
> add a similar instruction at 2.7.4.4. Cf. Changes #10-12 for changes to
> statements of function for publisher, distributor, and manufacturer.****
>
> ** **
>
> *Change #10*: At 2.8.4.4, delete restriction on recording statement of
> function and add instruction for recording statements of function with no
> name.****
>
> ** **
>
> *Rationale*: Currently, 2.8.4.4 does not allow a statement of function to
> be recorded with the publisher’s name unless the function is more than
> solely publishing. If the preferred source of information reads “Published
> by Isaac Riley,” the basic instruction says to record “Isaac Riley,” and
> there is no further instruction or optional addition to transcribe a
> statement of function that appears in the resource. This is inconsistent
> with the other sub-elements in Chapter 2 (Producer’s Name, Distributor’s
> Name and Manufacturer’s Name), which say to “record words or phrases
> indicating the function performed by a person, family, or corporate body as
> they appear on the source of information.” We would like to remove this
> restriction (which was also part of AACR2) for these reasons:****
>
> ** **
>
> **1)      **Differences between publication statements help users
> identify different manifestations of a work. This is especially important
> for manifestations without ISBNs, which did not appear on manifestations
> until the later part of the 20th century. One manifestation of a work might
> say “Published by Isaac Riley” and another might say “Isaac Riley,
> Publisher.” In this example, the difference in statement of functions is
> essential in identifying the appropriate manifestation of the resource, so
> there is no rationale for instructing catalogers to omit them.****
>
> **2)      **Publisher’s name is a transcribed sub-element. However, by
> instructing catalogers to remove statements of function, part of the
> transcription is lost. Also, often in inflected languages the publisher’s
> name is grammatically integrated with the statement of function, so by
> removing the statement of function, the publisher’s name is left declined
> with no context. ****
>
>  ****
>
> Finally, we note that sometimes a statement of function appears without a
> name. An example of this would be “Published by the author.” Currently in
> RDA, there are no instructions in 2.8 that allow for such data to be
> transcribed as part of the publication statement (the prohibition on
> statement of function prevents this statement from being transcribed at
> all). In addition to this being a common occurrence for early printed
> resources, it also happens frequently on modern vanity press publications.
> We feel that such data is part of the sub-element and should be recorded as
> part of that sub-element. Therefore, we have also proposed instructions for
> transcribing such statements of function with no name. See Change #9 for
> further explanation of this proposed change.****
>
> ** **
>
> *Change #11*: Add instruction at 2.9.4.4 for recording statements of
> function with no name. ****
>
> *Change #12*: Add instruction at 2.10.4.4 for recording statements of
> function with no name. ****
>
> *Rationale*: See Change #9 for explanation of these proposed changes.****
>
> ** **
>
> [The entire proposal: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-LC-24.pdf]****
>
> ** **
>



-- 
Elizabeth O'Keefe
Director of Collection Information Systems
The Morgan Library & Museum
225 Madison Avenue
New York, NY  10016-3405

TEL: 212 590-0380
FAX: 2127685680
NET: eokeefe at themorgan.org

Visit CORSAIR, the Libraryððs comprehensive collections catalog:
http://corsair.themorgan.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20130823/39df7494/attachment-0001.html>