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

[Mascaro, Michelle]

The book is Knorr, Georg Wolfgang. Deliciae naturae selectae, of uitgeleezen kabinet van natuurlyke zeldzaamheden.  Dordrecht: Abraham Blussé en Zoon, 1771.

I admit I jumped to 2 v. in 1, since that is how many of the available copy records in OCLC described it.  On second thought due to, as Bob said, the fact the pagination is not continuous and there are separate title pages, it would be better to treat this as two volumes bound together subsequent to publication.  The text and plates in both volumes have a continuous section lettering and numbering system, so I can be confident how the plates were intended to be bound.

Michelle


From: DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2018 7:54 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Extent for 2 v. in 1

Michelle, what's the book?

Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> |

From: DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Steele
Sent: Thursday, 30 August, 2018 07:32
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Extent for 2 v. in 1

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<mailto: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<mailto:mmascaro at ucsd.edu>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20180830/8c15885e/attachment-0001.html>