[DCRM-L] Unrecognized variant?

Wed Mar 23 13:22:46 MDT 2016

That's not what I meant. If as here, within the one issue, there are are 2
varying states of indeterminate precedence, to say that one copy
exemplifies "the variant" is not *quite *right, if the last sentence is
quoted alone. You have the "6-page variant" and the "10-page variant",
neither of which is "the variant", as far as you care to know.

This is a ridiculously refined point of diction in this context, though
there's nothing wrong with being as unambiguous as possible, as well as
succinct. I should have included a tone-of-voice emoji indicating that my
suggestion was maybe a bit much.

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 Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu>
wrote:

> This time I disagree with Richard. What you have are two variant states of
> the same issue, not two issues of the same edition.
>
>
>
> 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:* Wednesday, 23 March 2016 12:51
> *To:* Barbara Tysinger; DCRM Users' Group
>
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] Unrecognized variant?
>
>
>
> Looks good to me .. of course. But it also *feels* good to write notes
> like this that I will understand long after I've done another few hundred
> books and can't quite remember all the details of this one--which is a
> pretty good test whether it will make sense to anyone else. It *could* be
> set up so as to treat each state as a variant of the other ("Who you
> callin' a variant, you varmint!"), but your version does the trick just
> fine.
>
>
> 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 Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Barbara Tysinger <btysingr at email.unc.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Richard!
>
> Final version of note?
>
> "This record represents 2 issues of this edition, distinguished by a
> variation in the pagination of the preface. In the variant the preface is
> set in a smaller typeface, printed on 6 (vi) pages. Not evaluated for
> textual variation. Variant in the Sheldon Peck Collection on the History of
> Orthodontics and Dental Medicine, at the Health Sciences Library,
> University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. ǂ5 NcU-H"
>
> Barbara
>
>
>
>
> On 3/23/2016 9:50 AM, Noble, Richard wrote:
>
> The only thing you might add--only if you are allowed/allow yourself the
> time to do it--is to remark whether there is any textual variation. If I
> decided not to collate the texts, I might add, in cataloger passive, "(not
> evaluated for textual variation)" or something like that, but would pretty
> certainly cite my institution as having the variant and add $5, which
> serves as a sort of institutional cataloger signature.
>
>
> 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 4:50 PM, Shiner, Elaine P. <
> eshiner at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> 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 J
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 *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 | 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
> <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
> <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> 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 ), 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/20160323/6886ad6e/attachment-0001.html>