[DCRM-L] Unrecognized variant?

Tue Mar 22 14:29:41 MDT 2016

Well, issues are not *always* distinguished by title page
variants--different dedications are known to turn up, for instance, which
certainly mattered to somebody--but you have to dig pretty deeply into
Bowers to figure out how and when. Deborah's right that the default with no
title variants is to treat the variants as states within the issue.

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 Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu>
wrote:

> Congratulations, Barbara—isn't it satisfying to find new things like that?
>
>
>
> I agree with Richard. What you've described are variant states of an issue
> and should not be on different records. If, say, there was a statement on
> the title page about changes or revisions, then you'd probably be dealing
> with different issues, which would require a new record according to
> DCRM(B).
>
>
>
> From the DCRM(B) glossary:
>
> **Issue.* 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. | Senior Cataloger, Folger Shakespeare
> Library | djleslie at folger.edu | 202.675-0369 | 201 East Capitol St., SE,
> Washington, DC 20003 | www. folger.edu | orcid.org/0000-0001-5848-5467
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Noble, Richard
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 22 March 2016 15:34
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] Unrecognized variant?
>
>
>
> If the difference is clearly only physical--the same text crammed onto
> fewer pages--then this could be regarded as a case of variant states within
> a single issue (manifestation). A 500 note giving the details would be a
> useful addition to the OCLC master record (including reference to the copy
> that is your evidence for the difference).
>
>
>
> If there is any sort of significant difference in the text, then it might
> be described as a different issue, as such justifying its own dcrmb master
> record, though again some sort of note would be required. No doubt the
> holdings attached to the NLM master record represent both variants, which
> cannot be sorted out in any practicable way. I've written a few notes
> beginning, say, "This record represents 2 issues of this edition,
> distinguished by ...". There's just no other way to explain 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 Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Shiner, Elaine P. <
> eshiner at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> According to OCLC guidelines on When to Input a New Record, a “ variation
> in preliminary paging, post paging or separate paging” (not sure what they
> mean by ‘separate paging’) does not justify making a new record.  If you
> made a new record, and the preliminary pagination was the only difference,
> your record might merge with that of  the x, 440 p. issue.
>
>
>
> You can make a new record, however, if you use the rare book rules (dcrmb)
>
>
>
> Elaine
>
> Elaine Shiner,
>
> Rare Book Cataloger
>
> Houghton Library, Harvard University
>
>
>
> eshiner at fas.harvard.edu
>
> 617-496-9190
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Barbara Tysinger
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 22, 2016 2:23 PM
> *To:* DCRM Revision Group List
> *Subject:* [DCRM-L] Unrecognized variant?
>
>
>
> Hello All,
>
> I think I may have an unrecognized variant of *De la prothèse
> immédiate, appliquée a la résection des maxillaires* (1889) by Claude
> Martin.
>
> The records in OCLC all have the pagination as x, 440 pages, but the copy
> I have is vi, 440 pages, the Roman numerals in both cases representing the
> preface.
>
> Compared to the digitized copy at The Internet Archive (
> http://archive.org/stream/delaprothseimm00mart#page/n9/mode/2up
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__archive.org_stream_delaprothseimm00mart-23page_n9_mode_2up&d=CwMDaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=z7NicJkNYFkVLEcQmeSRBA7uLawvKWXubuodzMMWnVw&m=JwbtaCwq5TC_5X0YXjxD847PzYksFGnanWHZmF84wWI&s=2l7AwrFRybr2SBQ7IKfO9qzdYqUYfnkxMRNkNmEfINU&e=>
> ), the content of the preface in my copy is the same, but is set in a
> smaller font, taking less space. The title page, colophon, and main text
> block appear to be the same.
>
> Is this a variation worthy of a new record? Or should I use the existing
> NLM record in OCLC, and just make a change in the local catalog (with
> appropriate notation, of course).
>
> Thanks!
> Barbara
> ...................All opinions are entirely my own....................
>
> Barbara R. Tysinger                                Phone: (919)966-0949
> Health Sciences Library                            Fax:   (919)966-1388
> University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
> 335 S. Columbia Street, CB# 7585
> Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7585
> e-mail: Barbara_Tysinger at unc.edu
>
> ......."Non pilus tam tenuis ut secari non possit."-- St. Minutia......
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20160322/2e5889a1/attachment-0001.html>