[DCRM-L] Extent for 2 v. in 1

[Robert Steele]

Michelle:

Some questions: Are there 2 separate title pages? I see the pagination is
not continuous. What about the signatures? Are they also discontinuous
between the two volumes?  If your copy has been bound as a single volume,
but you have multiple indications that there are in fact 2 intended
volumes, I think the 300 should describe the *manifestation as intended *
(two volumes), with a note about how your particular copy is bound (1
volume).

In the 300 $$a, I would go with "2 volumes (XXXII, 67 pages; [3], XXXIV,
[1], 4-70 pages)" [note the semicolon between volumes; I suppose it's
debatable whether "pages" should be repeated]. If you know how the plates
were intended to be bound, I would include the number of plates with the
pagination for each volume. Of course, the full pagination could also be in
a note. Another note might read: UCSD copy: Bound subsequent to publication
as a single volume.

If what you have is a nineteenth-century book in a publisher's binding, I
suppose you could argue the the issue in a single volume was intended,
which would change everything.

I'll be interested in what others think.

Bob Steele
GW Law



On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 6:36 PM, Mascaro, Michelle <mmascaro at ucsd.edu>
wrote:

> In RDA for multipart monographs where the number of bibliographic volumes
> differs from the number of physical volumes instead of recording the extent
> as, for example, 8 volumes in 5 you record the extent in terms of physical
> volumes, and then you make a note about the difference.
>
>
>
> For those who are creating RDA compatible DCRM(B) descriptions, how are
> you handling extent for cases where you have 2 bibliographic volumes in 1
> physical volume? Since there is only one physical volume, following DCRM
> conventions you would record the complete pagination or foliation sequences
> (and not the LC-PCC PS recommendation of 1 volume (various pagings)).  In
> these situations do you keep the sequences for each bibliographic volume
> separate (e.g., XXXII, 67, [1], [38] leaves of plates ; [2], XXXIV, [1],
> 4-70 pages, [54] leaves of plates) or combine them (e.g., XXXII, 67, [3],
> XXXIV, [1], 4-70 pages, [92] leaves of plates)?
>
>
>
> (N.B. Asking as a cataloger, who is currently cataloging a 2 v. in 1, and
> not as the RBMS Policy Statements Editor.)
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> Michelle Mascaro
>
> Head, Special Collections Metadata
>
> University of California, San Diego
>
> (858) 534-6759
>
> mmascaro at ucsd.edu
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20180830/01740a13/attachment.html>