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

[Noble, Richard]

Even for c19-c21 books in publisher bindings I'd be inclined to back up the
extent statement with an explicit note that X otherwise distinct
bibliographical units are "bound, as issued, in Y volumes", or something
like that: whatever is needed to certify that the cataloger is not just
making it up on the basis of insufficient evidence.

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 Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 12:27 PM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu>
wrote:

> I've thought a lot about that instruction as it relates to handpress
> books, and have concluded that only very rarely—if ever—will such a
> formulation be appropriate. Since binding is copy-specific, the number of
> physical volumes is irrelevant for that element. So it comes down to how to
> count bibliographic volumes. The examples given in DCRM(B)—
>
> 3 v. in 5
>
> *Note*: Vols. Numbered 1, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3
>
>
>
> 8 v. in 5
>
> *Note*: The t.p. of the 5th vol. bears the designations "Bde. 5-8"
>
>
>
> don't illustrate a discrepancy between bibliographic and physical as much
> as a discrepancy between the number/type of bibliographic units and how
> they are labeled. Fortunately, this circumstance just doesn't arise in the
> early modern world that I inhabit. (-;
>
>
>
> Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu |
>
>
>
> *From:* DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On Behalf Of *Mascaro,
> Michelle
> *Sent:* Thursday, 30 August, 2018 11:56
> *To:* 'DCRM Users' Group'
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] Extent for 2 v. in 1
>
>
>
> 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
> <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 |
>
>
>
> *From:* DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
> <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>
> 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/20180830/7ef60816/attachment-0001.html>