[DCRM-L] Oddity of bound with/signatures

Thu Aug 28 07:28:57 MDT 2014

I do a fair amount of searching in national library and national union
databases (usefully aggregated by the KVK), especially when a book is
relatively rare, or I'm just interested in how certain aspects of the book
are rendered in its own country--just as I use both the CERL Thesuarus and
VIAF for authority work relating to Continental authors.

I can't contribute records to anything but the WorldCat, and I routinely
enhance records from which I'm doing "copy"  cataloging and think that at
least one of the many "master" records ought to be made worth copying.

RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
<Richard_Noble at Br <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl at uab.edu> wrote:

>  Thanks again for the explanation and the reference to Bowers.
>
>
>
> Do you download records from the ICCU catalog? I’m guessing you probably
> can’t contribute records to it, since it seemed all the holding
> institutions were libraries in Italy. It is nice to see a list of records
> that’s not so full of dups, as WorldCat is. Do you use other national
> libraries the same way, say, a German national library for a German author?
>
> Best, Ted
>
>
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Noble, Richard
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:13 PM
>
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] Oddity of bound with/signatures
>
>
>
> The later book was issued in a form that facilitated binding with a book
> published 3 years earlier, either before or after sale of the latter--the
> signatures do suggest that there were still unsold copies of the 1687
> *Opera*, and it's possible, thought probably not provable, that Van der
> Aa intended to market no more copies of the *Opera* without the
> supplement. Nevertheless, each of them is complete as an issue without the
> other and equipped to be sold separately: thus the 1690 title page.
>
>
>
> A 501 note in either record implies that the presence of the other
> publication is "called for" to constitute a complete copy of either one,
> and this is simply not the case; if something is truly "issued with"
> something else, neither constitutes a complete issue in itself, and these
> *are* complete. Copies of the *Opera *with and without *De structura
> glandularum* are simply in different states (see Bowers, pp. 70ff on this
> phenomenon), given the continuation of signatures. Even "state" may,
> however, be too great a level of distinction between copies of *De
> structura*. They could be regarded as being in different *binding* states
> (if that's a useful distinction at all); but consider that a previous buyer
> of 1687 whose copy was already bound by 1690 would be unlikely to break
> that binding in order to incorporate the supplement, even if it had been
> purchased as such.
>
>
>
> I might well consider reciprocal 700s to account for each as a related
> work to the other. Oy... on and on.
>
>
>
> The ICCU catalog can be helpful as not offering a great heap of dup
> records such as one may find in the somewhat overwhelmed WorldCat. It
> clears the mind.
>
>
>  RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
>
> BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
>
> <Richard_Noble at Br <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl at uab.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Richard,
>
> Thanks for the help with this. Here’s one point, though: I would think you
> could use a 501 in the *De structura glandularum *record since the
> signatures suggest the edition is meant to be issued with the *Opera
> Omnia. *But definitely no 501 in its record. Don’t we have to assume that
> van der Aa produced this edition of *De structura glandularum *to be
> issued with his 1687 *Opera Omnia? *
>
>
>
> Thanks for the link to the ICCU catalog. Do you find that catalog helpful?
>
> Thanks, Ted
>
>
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Noble, Richard
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 27, 2014 3:03 PM
>
>
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] Oddity of bound with/signatures
>
>
>
> Since it has its own title page it should definitely be cataloged as an
> independent publication. The fact that it was issued as a supplement or
> continuation still doesn't justify a 501 in the record for *Opera omnia*,
> which is a complete manifestation as issued without it in 1687; but the
> same is also true of *De structura glandularum*, since it can stand
> alone, despite the obvious link between the two publications indicated by
> the signatures. You should end up with two bib records containing
> complementary publication and "with" notes.
>
>
>
> Incidentally, the corresponding ICCU OPAC SBN records
> are IT\ICCU\UFIE\000616 (*Opera omnia*) and IT\ICCU\PUVE\010106 (*De
> structura glandularum*) at
>
>
>
> http://www.sbn.it/opacsbn/opac/iccu/free.jsp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
>
> BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
>
> <Richard_Noble at Br <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl at uab.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Richard,
>
> It does have its own title page, with date 1690.
>
>
>
> Are you saying I should use two records, with the main one with a 500 note
> indicating that *De structura glandularum* is sometimes bound with Opera
> omnia, and a 590 indicating our library’s copy has it? Then on the second
> record, I might use a 501 indicating *De structura glandularum*  was
> issued with the Opera Omnia? That seems like it would cover the situation
> well.
>
>
>
> I notice that #223442238, along with the 501, uses a 740 for the 1690
> work rather than a second record. That seems less accurate to me since the
> date for the entire work, given in the fixed field, is 1687.
>
> Thanks, Ted
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Noble, Richard
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 27, 2014 1:48 PM
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] Oddity of bound with/signatures
>
>
>
> Off the top of my head: I assume that the 1690 *De structura gladularum* was
> issued as a supplement to *Opera omnia* (which were no longer truly
> "omnia"). Has it a title page of its own, or just a caption title? The only
> independent publication of it that I can find is the London edition
> published by Richard Chiswell--probably the first edition, as was the
> London edition of * Opera omnia*.
>
>
>
> If copies of *Opera omnia* that do contain this supplemental work have
> the original title page, then its presence in any one copy is essentially
> multiple-item-specific (so to speak). One should account for its possible
> presence in a 500 note in the general record; a "with" note relating to it
> would be local 590. An analytic ought to be made for the supplement, and
> since it doesn't appear to have been issued independently by Van der Aa, it
> should have a general note regarding the circumastances of its
> publication--which *could* be a 501, I suppose, though I don't think
> there's a great deal of gain in so tagging it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
>
> BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
>
> <Richard_Noble at Br <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl at uab.edu>
> wrote:
>
> I notice there are a couple of records (#223442238 and 642461646) that
> treats the second work as issued with the Opera omnia since they note it in
> a 501 field.
>
> Ted
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Ted P Gemberling
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:41 PM
> *To:* DCRM Revision Group List (dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu)
> *Subject:* [DCRM-L] Oddity of bound with/signatures
>
>
>
> I am cataloging Marcello Malpighi’s Opera Omnia, published at Leiden by
> Pieter van der Aa in 1687. The OCLC record I am using is #4992775. I ran
> into an oddity that I wanted to run by people on the list. The last
> gathering in the 2-volume work is 3F(superscript 4). Immediately following
> leaf 3F4 in my copy is another work of his called De structurâ glandularum
> conglobatarum consiliúmque partium epistola, also published by van der Aa
> in 1690. The odd thing is that the signatures of this work are
> 3G-3H(superscript 4). Do you think it’s just a coincidence that the
> signatures are continuous though the date is later?
>
>
>
> Thanks for any enlightenment.
>
>
>
> Ted P. Gemberling
>
> Historical Collections Cataloger
>
> UAB Lister Hill Library, rm. 234B
>
> 1720 Second Ave. South
>
> Birmingham, Ala. 35294-0013
>
> Phone: (205)934-2461
>
> Fax: (205)934-3545
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20140828/28a3ad73/attachment-0001.html>