[DCRM-L] hand coloring and new descriptions

[Allison Jai O'Dell]

Another question that is, of course, relevant: does it serve users to
create a new description for color variations?

Maybe we can ask the research community?


Allison

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Cordes, Ellen <ellen.cordes at yale.edu>
wrote:

>  I still think the concept that G uses is central:  was there or was
> there not a change to the matrix?  If yes, then a new record. If no, than
> the issue of hand-coloring is item specific whether the publisher caused it
> to be hand-colored and sold them as such or a later owner commissioned the
> coloring. Sometimes we can tell because it says on the print that it is
> sold both colored and uncolored, but we cannot tell if a later owner had
> his print colored to his liking.
>
>
>
>
>
> Ellen
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Lapka, Francis
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:44 PM
> *To:* dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
> *Subject:* [DCRM-L] hand coloring and new descriptions
>
>
>
> On behalf of the DCRM2 task force, I would like community thoughts on what
> appears to be an inconsistency on the matter of Variations requiring a new
> record (Appendix E).
>
>
>
> The draft of DCRM(C), rule E1.2 says: “… generally consider that a new
> bibliographic record is required whenever the material distinguishes itself
> from other variants by one or more of the following characteristics: …
>
>
>
> ·         change in the presence of hand coloring, if there is evidence
> that the resource was issued both with and without the hand coloring (in
> case of doubt, assume the material was issued both ways)”
>
>
>
> Contrast this to DCRM(G), rule E1.3, which says: “Examples of differences
> that do not in themselves necessarily signal the need for a new record in
> the absence of other differences include: …
>
>
>
> ·         the presence or absence of hand-coloring
>
>
>
> ·         a difference in printed colors”
>
>
>
> The other DCRM manuals do not explicitly treat the issue of color in this
> context. That said, the matter is still relevant to other formats. It is
> common, for example, for publishers of color-plate books to announce (on
> the item) the availability of the book in colored and uncolored versions,
> at different prices. In this circumstance, it is uncommon practice (as far
> as I know) to create separate records for the colored and uncolored
> versions.
>
>
>
> The default DCRM guideline is to “assume that a separate bibliographic
> record [i.e. a new Manifestation?] will be created for each bibliographic
> variant that represents what is referred to as an ‘edition’ in AACR2 and an
> ‘issue’ in bibliographic scholarship.” It’s not a leap to argue that a
> difference in coloring meets the definition of a distinct *issue* (from
> DCRMB): “A group of published copies which constitutes a consciously
> planned publishing unit, distinguishable from other groups of published
> copies by one or more differences designed expressly to identify the group
> as a discrete unit.”
>
>
>
> I would like DCRM2 to take a consistent (and principled) stand on the
> matter, allowing (as DCRM does) for agencies to vary when it makes sense to
> do so. What, then, would make most sense as the *default* approach?
>
>
>
> I’ve already received useful comments from members of the Cartographic
> team on this question, and I encourage them to chime in again here.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Francis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Francis Lapka  ·  Catalog Librarian
>
> Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts
>
> Yale Center for British Art
>
> 203.432.9672  ·  francis.lapka at yale.edu
>
>
>
> BUILDING CONSERVATION PROJECT
> The Center will be closed from January 2, 2015 through February 2016 for
> its Building Conservation Project
> <http://britishart.yale.edu/architecture/building-conservation-project>. Please
> email the Study Room <ycba.studyroom at yale.edu> and/or the Reference
> Library <ycba.reference at yale.edu> to request an appointment, which will
> be accommodated on a limited basis Tuesday-Friday, 10 am-4 pm, contingent
> upon the construction schedule.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150226/2f5b15e3/attachment-0001.html>