[DCRM-L] Production Statement Proposal

[Lapka, Francis]

For published material, I share Richard’s enthusiasm for the revised approach to transcription (in a single element).

For unpublished material, it’s unclear whether that approach would be as fruitful. With printed items, we have a tradition of convenient clustering (on title pages) of all information related to publication or manufacture (frequently enough, at least). This nice bundle could ease effortlessly into a single element for transcription. With manuscript items, information related to Production is less reliably bundled. On a hand-written letter, for example, the date might be at the head of the sheet, the name of the writer at the foot, and the place of writing could be in any number of locations in the resource.

From the preliminary form of Alan Danskin’s paper, it’s not clear how the above scenario would be handled. If the three pieces of information are in three different places, would it require three instances of the Production Statement element to record all of the information?  Because of questions like this, Liz and I decided that our paper should withhold comment on applying the alternate approach to transcription of the Production Statement.

Francis



From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Erin Blake
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 10:07 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: [DCRM-L] Cataloging a print (was: RE: Production Statement Proposal)

<stage whisper> Because pictures don’t share a title-page-like presentation convention, notes on transposition aren’t required in DCRM(G), so the problem of the clumsiness of ‘transposed’ notes in cataloging that print can go away on its own. The only mandatory note is on source of title, which can be as simple as “Title from item.” In this case, I’d probably go with “Title engraved below image” or “Title engraved in open letters below image” (because it’s an “open letter proof” – a marketing gimmick at the time – the next batch of prints run off from that plate would have had the block capitals filled in with parallel lines).

245: John Haighton, M.D., F.R.S. [graphic] : lecturer on midwifery and physiology at Guy's Hospital / H. Ashby pinxt. ; J. Kennerly sculp.
260: London : Published July 1st 1818 by Elizabeth Cox & Son, St. Thomas Street, Southwark, [1818]

</stage whisper>

Erin.

__________

Erin C. Blake, Ph.D.  |  Head of Collection Information Services  |  Folger Shakespeare Library  | 201 E. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC 20003  |  office tel. +1 (202) 675-0323  |  fax +1 (202) 675-0328  |  eblake at folger.edu<mailto:eblake at folger.edu>




From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 3:39 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Production Statement Proposal

The virtue of simple, unsubdivided transcription elements came rather sharply into focus as I was agonizing about minor points of transcription, and cursing the clumsiness of "transposed" notes, in cataloging a print rather more elegantly treated here (the two records are very similar):

http://digital.library.mcgill.ca/oslerprints/search-results.php?field0=creator&term0=Kennerly,%20J.,%20engraver

The combination of specific elements for retrieval and basic identification, together with the single element transcription in the "Notes" as a kind of fingerprint, looks so easy by comparison--easier to create and easier to understand. Of course there's an image here too, and perhaps one day that will be so universally available in all contexts as to render transcription unnecessary; then again, it might still be useful to have a low-bandwidth, high legibility (and, one could hope, expertly interpreted) version of the information. This instance has, granted, more to do with 245 than 264, but the problems are much the same in both.

(Strictly BTW, the Osler cataloger is right about the medium, stipple engraving; some (e.g. V&A)  have incorrectly called it a mezzotint.)

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

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>> wrote:

•         We acknowledge—and partially support—the BL proposal (subject of last week’s thread) but only lightly integrate its ideas into our own recommendations. We do not comment on the possibility of condensing the Production Statement into a single transcribed element. In fact, our assumption is that 2.7 (Production Statement) would remain divided into distinct sub-elements. So, in the event that our discussion paper and the BL paper both receive support, some compromise might have to be made.



We look forward to your feedback.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20140602/20f7e6e2/attachment.html>