[DCRM-L] Notes on conjectural dates: DCRM(B) 4D5

[Manon Théroux]

Deborah,
Copying below 2 messages from the DCRM-L archives (November 2010) explaining the change. Erin proposed it to align with 4D4. I think I was the only one who responded to the list. As you can see, I wasn’t entirely convinced. 

BSC subsequently approved the change by a vote of 11-0.

Manon


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Manon Theroux <manon.theroux at gmail.com>
> Date: November 28, 2010 at 10:11:49 PM EST
> To: DCRM Revision Group List <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
> Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DPC: Mandatory note on supplied date inconsistency
> 
> DCRM(B) 4D6.3 and DCRM(S) 4D5.3 :
> --I'd be okay with revising the rule to delete "if possible" and
> rewording to begin with "If a date of publication ..."
> --Re the question "should a wacky copyright date be noted
> "nonetheless" whether or not the publication date appears in the
> source?" I think this situation is adequately covered by 4D6.4 which
> gives the cataloger leeway to note the copyright date; I don't think
> it should be mandatory (and would hate to have to clarify what to
> consider "wacky").
> 
> DCRM(B) 4D5: I'd be okay with deleting "Give any needed explanation in
> a note" or rewording based on 4D4 language, though I don't find the
> current sentence particularly egregious (again it's simply a
> carry-over from DCRB).
> 
> Finally, although it isn't being proposed, I'd also be fine with NOT
> doing the above and instead revising 4D4 to make the note NOT
> mandatory. Something like: "Indicate the basis for the conjecture in a
> note if possible." There have certainly been times when I've had to
> supply a probable century date or an uncertain span based on an item's
> overall look and feel, or its general vocabulary and turns of phrase,
> but would have trouble coming up with a good note to that effect.
> 
> -Manon
> 
>> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Erin Blake <EBlake at folger.edu> wrote:
>> DCRM(B) 4D6.3 and DCRM(S) 4D5.3 say "If the date of copyright or deposit does not represent the probable date of publication, distribution, etc., note it nonetheless and supply a more accurate date of publication, distribution, etc., in square brackets. Provide an explanation for the supplied date, if possible" but there are two problems:
>> a) providing an explanation for a supplied date is mandatory according to 4D4, so "if possible" should be deleted
>> b) for clarity, the rule should begin "If a date of publication, distribution, etc., does not appear in the source and the date of copyright or deposit does not represent the probable date of publication..." (for that matter, should a wacky copyright date be noted "nonetheless" whether or not the publication date appears in the source?)
>> 
>> Similarly, DCRM(B) 4D5 (Patterns for supplying a conjectural date) says "Give any needed explanation in a note" but again, explaining a conjectural date is mandatory per 4D4, so the phrase should either be omitted (because it's already stated above) or or "Indicate the basis for the conjecture in a note" should be repeated from 4D4 as a reminder.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> EB


> On Nov 9, 2019, at 8:49 PM, Erin Blake <erin.blake.folger at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> As I recall, the change to "indicate the basis for the conjecture in the note" was made because we want users to know the cataloger didn't have access to anything more that what's presented in the record. If the conjectured date comes from the date of the sermon in the title, you still need to say "Date based on title." That way, for example, if someone later finds evidence that the sermon circulated in manuscript for a few years before it was printed, they'll know for-sure that the conjecture came from internal evidence alone.
>  
> EB.
>  
> ----------------
> Erin Blake, PhD  |  pronouns: she/her/hers  |  Senior Cataloger  |  Folger Shakespeare Library  |  201 E. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC, 20003  |  eblake at folger.edu  |  www.folger.edu
> 
>> On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 12:16 PM Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu> wrote:
>> In the context of revising existing DCRM(B) [i.e., not DCRM2 based on RDA]:
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Early printings of DCRM(B) give this text for 4D5:
>> 
>> 4D5. Patterns for supplying a conjectural date
>> 
>> Give a probable date or period of publication, distribution, etc., according to one of the patterns shown in the examples below. Give any needed explanation in a note.
>> 
>> According to the DCRM Editorial Group wiki, the final sentence was changed to
>> 
>> Give any needed explanation in a note. Indicate the basis for the conjecture in a note.
>> 
>> I cannot track down any email or wiki discussion for this change, which was approved by the BSC on Dec. 7 2010. As I write in the dcrmedits wiki, the requirement to make a note is more stringent than leaving it to cataloger's judgment of whether a note is needed. Often the conjectured date is obvious from other parts of the description, such as the date of a sermon or other address.
>> 
>> I propose this be returned to the original language, allowing for cataloger's judgment. Discuss.   
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> ______________________
>> 
>> Deborah J Leslie (she/her) | Senior Cataloger | Folger Shakespeare Library | 201 East Capitol Street, S.E. Washington, DC 20003 | djleslie at folger.edu
>> 
>>  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20191110/da933506/attachment-0001.html>