[DCRM-L] Unrecognized variant?

Wed Mar 23 14:18:26 MDT 2016

I take Deborah's point about $5. That being a problem, I'll omit $5 in
cases such as this, even though I'm inclined to include information about a
copy-in-hand that is my "source" for the information, together with a dose
of cataloger judgment. It's maddening to encounter information of this kind
for which no source is given, since there are, alas, some catalogers who
know just enough to create plausible sounding misinformation that has to be
followed up and corrected.

It's hard to report original analytic work, or just stuff I've noticed,
anonymously--I find myself involved in all sorts of ridiculous passively
periphrastic tangles as I try to report in such a way as to evidence some
degree of credibility (which itself is subject to the "six month" rule--aka
"What was I thinking?").

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 3:38 PM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu>
wrote:

> I get it, you don't like calling them "variants," while I was objecting to
> calling them two issues. I also caution against the copy-specific
> information in the general note; and especially against using a ‡5. Some
> institutions, such as ours, routinely strip all fields that have a ‡5
> that's not DFo. The place for the copy-specific information is in a local
> or copy-specific note.
>
>
>
> Here's a record I did recently with a similar situation:
> http://hamnet.folger.edu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?BBID=229986. Even though
> it's been over six months, I still agree with it.* (-;
>
>
>
> *Six-month rule: No cataloger agrees with the work of another cataloger;
> no cataloger agrees with her own work six months later.
>
>
>
> 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 15:23
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] Unrecognized variant?
>
>
>
> That's not what I meant. If as here, within the one issue, there 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/20160323/3eb4d23d/attachment-0001.html>