[DCRM-L] item-specific notes: RDA 2.21 and 3.22

[Noble, Richard]

By way of example for reference to copies in general notes, see

http://josiah.brown.edu/record=b7584873

which includes the corresponding OCLC number at the end. This was a new
record, since there had been no previous record for the Michallet issue
(though holdings of that copy were attached to the 1685 issue, with
integral title, that named no publisher/bookseller). The nightmarish
collational formula reflects a vanity/promotional publication printed while
the author was *way* out of town.

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 Thu, May 14, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Noble, Richard <richard_noble at brown.edu>
wrote:

> As to the letter, is this a manuscript, which is unique? In that case the
> manifestation *is* an item, and there is no point in trying to
> distinguish between the two FRBR levels. All forms of evidence, including
> later additions to the letter as much as the physical characteristics of
> the substrate, are item level, but tagged as general because they are also
> all manifestation level: there is no distinction between what the letter
> writer wrote and what was added by later hands.
>
> As to dispositive manifestation evidence that occurs in a single copy,
> that also is tagged as general. It's essentially a reference source
> *about* the manifestation, not a statement about a physical
> characteristic *of* the manifestation. In cases of ambiguity, especially
> as regards evidence at the level of bibliographical state* that has been
> *noted* in one copy only, but may be present in other copies, my practice
> has been to add a 500 $5RPB note, or, if I've noted it in another
> institution's copy (perhaps as digitized), a simple 500 with explicit
> reference to the copy in which the evidence was observed. (No $5RPB because
> my institution is not the source of the evidence; in such cases I've often
> wished that we could drop our mask of anonymity and sign our notes in some
> fashion. Or is the $5 the semantic equivalent of such a signature?)
>
> *Unless of course the state is of such a nature as to distinguish a
> different manifestation (issue, in printed books). That requires creation
> of a new record--with fully informative notes regarding the distinction and
> possibly, especially if you're breaking a conflation, information regarding
> the copy or copies in which the evidence was found.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150514/b7ce9ba2/attachment.html>