[DCRM-L] Unrecognized variant?

Tue Mar 22 14:50:13 MDT 2016

Yes, I agree with Deborah and Richard. I was thinking more about what was allowed in OCLC.

Just because you can doesn’t mean you should ☺

Elaine Shiner,
Rare Book Cataloger
Houghton Library, Harvard University

eshiner at fas.harvard.edu<mailto: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 Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 4:02 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Unrecognized variant?

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<mailto: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> [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<mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__own.edu&d=CwMGaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=z7NicJkNYFkVLEcQmeSRBA7uLawvKWXubuodzMMWnVw&m=Mbp-sUHVkuiRk-n_qzOw9absFOogmfsYWybMLH7eAsk&s=CjoS4dBXhGPv8oWrXJ-KGp0cIt8gIeqpldkh47slDuA&e=>>

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Shiner, Elaine P. <eshiner at fas.harvard.edu<mailto: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<mailto:eshiner at fas.harvard.edu>
617-496-9190<tel:617-496-9190>

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto: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 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<tel:%28919%29966-0949>
Health Sciences Library                            Fax:   (919)966-1388<tel:%28919%29966-1388>
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<mailto: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/20160322/3f267161/attachment-0001.html>