[DCRM-L] DCRM(B) 4D1.3-4D1.4

[Robert Maxwell]

Not a very big elephant ... We'd record the information in just the same way, I should think. If we've declared date information to be permissible in $b in 260, it should be the same in 264. Since publisher (bookseller) information is being recorded, 264 -1 would be appropriate:

264 -1 $a London : $b Printed in the year MDCCLXXVIII, and may be had of E. Benson, No. 13, Pater-Noster-Row, $c [1778]

If we allow "option 1" which Deborah doesn't like but thinks we could make an argument for ("but it would be hard going"), we could do this:

264 -1 $a London : $b And may be had of E. Benson, No. 13, Pater-Noster-Row, $c [1778]
264 -3 $c Printed in the year MDCCLXXVIII.

I agree it's hard going, but it does make the printing date machine-actionable, especially if we add the arabic equivalent in brackets.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Auyong, Dorothy
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 1:11 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DCRM(B) 4D1.3-4D1.4

And now, the elephant in the room.  How would we encode that nicely elegant transcription into the new RDA 264 MARC format?  http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd264.html


Dorothy Auyong
Principal Rare Book Cataloger
Henry E. Huntington Library
dauyong at huntington.org<mailto:dauyong at huntington.org>



From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu]<mailto:[mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu]> On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 7:21 AM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DCRM(B) 4D1.3-4D1.4

Another second--and I've added this as an example in my copy of DCRM(B). ESTC's transcription exemplifies the potential awkwardess that 4C3 addresses.

RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-3384 : RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU<mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Lenore Rouse <rouse at cua.edu<mailto:rouse at cua.edu>> wrote:
Option 3 seems clearest to me.
Lenore

--
Lenore Rouse, Curator
Rare Books and Special Collections
Catholic University of America
Room 214, Mullen Library
620 Michigan Avenue N.E.
Washington, DC 20064

Phone: (202) 319-5090<tel:%28202%29%20319-5090>
Email: rouse at cua.edu<mailto:rouse at cua.edu>
RBSC Blog: http://ascendonica.blogspot.com/




On 2/13/2013 6:56 PM, Randal Brandt wrote:
I am cataloging a pamphlet that has a confusingly constructed imprint. DCRM(B) 4D1.3 and 4D1.4 do not quite address this situation. The title in question is "An Heroic Epistle to an Unfortunate Monarch by Peregrine the Elder [i.e. William Combe]," 1778; ESTC T36159: http://estc.bl.uk/T36159

The imprint reads (with line breaks and original punctuation and capitalization):

LONDON:
Printed in the YEAR M DCC LXXVIII.
And may be had of E. Benson, No. 13, PATER-NOSTER-ROW.


Reading DCRM(B), I see three possible transcriptions:

1) London : $b And may be had of E. Benson, No. 13, Pater-Noster-Row, $c printed in the year MDCCLXXVIII [1778]

    (with a note about the transposition)

2) London : $b [s.n.], $c printed in the year MDCCLXXVIII [1778], and may be had of E. Benson, No. 13, Pater-Noster-Row.

3) London : $b Printed in the year MDCCLXXVIII, and may be had of E. Benson, No. 13, Pater-Noster-Row, $c [1778]


ESTC went with option 1 above (without the transposition note), but I'm leaning towards option 3. What sayeth the collective wisdom?

Many thanks in advance,


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20130214/edc00510/attachment.html>