From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Fri May 4 06:33:23 2001 From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Patrick J. Russell) Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 22:33:23 -0700 Subject: DCRM(S) area 4 In-Reply-To: <4.1.20010321133518.00a5e288@jgillis.mail.yale.edu> Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C0D421.10214900 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry about my delay in replying, trying to iron out retirement details, adjusting to new situation, andworking part time at Grad. Theological Union Library (Berkeley). However, here goes on Serials (not my forte) i agree basically with Jane's point on Roman numerals, and with the need to transribe addresses. Also, I agree that as much as possible we should be consistent acroos "formats" (books, serials, maps, etc.) Of course this is not always possible, but many variations seem to me arbitrary, and confusing to user of the catalog, let alone time consuming for the cataloger to figure out which "convention" to follow. As to "what" should be $b or $c (the "moon" instance) to some extent this is question of interpretation and context. I'll take the person's word for it that in the case in point "sign of the moon" refers to date(s), but it could, in a certain context, be an address or "name" of a place of ... Agree that if "date" data, should go in $c. Patrick -----Original Message----- From: owner-dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu [mailto:owner-dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu]On Behalf Of Jane Gillis Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 10:36 AM To: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Subject: Re: DCRM(S) area 4 I am sending this again. Don't know if everyone got it. While everyone is thinking about Juliet's question on area 4, may I add another concerning Roman numerals? Bob pointed out that DCRM(S) differed from DCRB in the area of Roman numerals, which are: Roman numerals. When roman numerals appear as Gregorian or Julian years, change them to arabic numerals unless they are erroneous or misprinted. , anno gratiae 1614 (On publication: Anno gratiae MDCXIV) Transcribe years other than Gregorian or Julian as they appear. , an VII 1798 (On publication: An VII, 1798) Optionally, if it is considered important to retain in the catalog record the exact expression of the date, transcribe the date as it appears in roman numerals and add the date in arabic numerals in square brackets. , MDCLVI [1656] Fictitious or incorrect dates. When the year of publication or printing is known to be fictitious or is incorrect, transcribe it as it appears and add the real or correct year in square brackets. (If the full imprint is fictitious or incorrect, apply 4A4.) , DMLII [i.e. 1552] Juliet and I have discussed these rules and have decided that we will follow what DCRM will be doing in other formats, especially (G) and (B). Before we change what we have, the committee should consider whether any changes are to be made to DCRM. Specifically, 1. Why change Roman numerals to arabic, without brackets, only when the numerals appear as Gregorian or Julian years? 2. And only those Gregorian or Julian years that are not erroneous or misprinted? 3. What is the reason for not transcribing Roman numerals as Roman numerals no matter what they stand for in the imprint? 4. Is the date not a transcribed area? The simplest solution would seem to be to transcribe what is there, bracketing if needed the arabic numeral. Optionally, if the Roman numerals are not considered important, bracket their translation into arabic numerals. The rule concerning Roman numerals would be much simpler. How do the rest of you feel? Jane Gillis | Rare Book Cataloger| Sterling Memorial Library Yale University | New Haven CT 06520 (203)432-8383 (voice) | (203)432-7231 (fax) | jane.gillis@ yale.edu ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C0D421.10214900 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Sorry=20 about my delay in replying, trying to iron out retirement details, = adjusting to=20 new situation, andworking part time at Grad. Theological Union Library=20 (Berkeley). However, here goes on Serials (not my=20 forte)

i=20 agree basically with Jane's point on Roman numerals, and with the need = to=20 transribe addresses.

Also,=20 I agree that as much as possible we should be consistent acroos = "formats"=20 (books, serials, maps, etc.) Of course this is not always = possible, but=20 many variations seem to me arbitrary, and confusing to user of the = catalog, let=20 alone time consuming for the cataloger to figure out which "convention" = to=20 follow.

As to=20 "what" should be $b or $c (the "moon" instance) to some extent this is = question=20 of interpretation and context. I'll take the person's word for it = that in=20 the case in point "sign of the moon" refers to date(s), but it could, in = a=20 certain context, be an address or "name" of a place of ... Agree = that if=20 "date" data, should go in $c.

Patrick

-----Original Message-----
From: = owner-dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu=20 [mailto:owner-dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu]On Behalf Of Jane=20 Gillis
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 10:36 = AM
To:=20 dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu
Subject: Re: DCRM(S) area=20 4

I am sending this again. = Don't know=20 if everyone got it.

While everyone is thinking about Juliet's = question=20 on area 4, may I add another concerning Roman numerals?

Bob = pointed out=20 that DCRM(S) differed from DCRB in the area of Roman numerals, which=20 are:

Roman=20 numerals. When roman numerals appear as Gregorian or Julian = years,=20 change them to arabic numerals unless they are erroneous or=20 = misprinted.

,= =20 anno gratiae 1614
(On publication: Anno gratiae = MDCXIV)

Transcribe=20 years other than Gregorian or Julian as they=20 = appear.

,=20 an VII 1798
(On publication: An VII,=20 = 1798)
        <= BR>Optionally,=20 if it is considered important to retain in the catalog record the = exact=20 expression of the date, transcribe the date as it appears in roman = numerals=20 and add the date in arabic numerals in square=20 = brackets.

,=20 MDCLVI [1656]

Fictitious or incorrect dates. When the = year of=20 publication or printing is known to be fictitious or is incorrect, = transcribe=20 it as it appears and add the real or correct year in square = brackets. =20 (If the full imprint is fictitious or incorrect, apply=20 = 4A4.)
        <= X-TAB>
,=20 DMLII [i.e. 1552]

Juliet and I have discussed these = rules and=20 have decided that we will follow what DCRM will be doing in other = formats,=20 especially (G) and (B). Before we change what we have, the = committee=20 should consider whether any changes are to be made to DCRM. =20 Specifically,

1. Why change Roman numerals to arabic, without = brackets,=20 only when the numerals appear as Gregorian or Julian years? =

2.=20 And only those Gregorian or Julian years that are not erroneous or=20 misprinted?

3. What is the reason for not transcribing Roman = numerals=20 as Roman numerals no matter what they stand for in the = imprint?

4. Is=20 the date not a transcribed area?

The simplest solution would = seem to be=20 to transcribe what is there, bracketing if needed the arabic=20 numeral.   Optionally, if the Roman numerals are not = considered=20 important, bracket their translation into arabic numerals. The = rule=20 concerning Roman numerals would be much simpler.

How do the = rest of you=20 feel?

Jane Gillis | Rare Book Cataloger| Sterling Memorial = Library

Yale University | New Haven CT 06520

(203)432-8383 (voice) | (203)432-7231 (fax) | jane.gillis@=20 yale.edu

------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C0D421.10214900-- From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Fri May 4 16:23:34 2001 From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Jane Gillis) Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 11:23:34 -0400 Subject: DCRM(S) area 4 In-Reply-To: References: <4.1.20010321133518.00a5e288@jgillis.mail.yale.edu> Message-ID: <4.1.20010504110950.00a0a3e0@jgillis.mail.yale.edu> Patrick, Thank you for responding. Good luck in your retirement. The list has been inactive for quite some time. Juliet and I have been very busy, reading all the suggestions, questions, etc. and making huge changes (i.e., the document is now much longer) and reorganizing. We are almost at the end of this iteration of the rules for rare serials. In the next week or two, I will be sending out another notice that changes have been made and we are ready for more comments, suggestions, etc. We have left the date in the 260 essentially the same. Our feeling is that we will follow (as best possible) what is decided for DCRM. We want to be reasonable and consistent. What do people think about Roman numerals in dates? Does DCRB reflect what we want to do? I think the questions about the 260 pertain to more than just the serial format. as soon as a decision is made on the dates, we can change DCRM(S). So feedback on that right now would be helpful. Jane Gillis At 10:33 PM 5/3/01 -0700, Patrick J. Russell wrote: > > Sorry about my delay in replying, trying to iron out retirement details, > adjusting to new situation, andworking part time at Grad. Theological Union > Library (Berkeley). However, here goes on Serials (not my forte) > > i agree basically with Jane's point on Roman numerals, and with the need to > transribe addresses. > > Also, I agree that as much as possible we should be consistent acroos > "formats" (books, serials, maps, etc.) Of course this is not always > possible, but many variations seem to me arbitrary, and confusing to user of > the catalog, let alone time consuming for the cataloger to figure out which > "convention" to follow. > > As to "what" should be $b or $c (the "moon" instance) to some extent this is > question of interpretation and context. I'll take the person's word for it > that in the case in point "sign of the moon" refers to date(s), but it could, > in a certain context, be an address or "name" of a place of ... Agree that > if "date" data, should go in $c. > > Patrick > > > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu [mailto:owner-dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu]On Behalf Of >> Jane Gillis >> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 10:36 AM >> To: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu >> Subject: Re: DCRM(S) area 4 >> >> I am sending this again. Don't know if everyone got it. >> >> While everyone is thinking about Juliet's question on area 4, may I add >> another concerning Roman numerals? >> >> Bob pointed out that DCRM(S) differed from DCRB in the area of Roman >> numerals, which are: >> >> Roman numerals. When roman numerals appear as Gregorian or Julian years, >> change them to arabic numerals unless they are erroneous or misprinted. >> >> , anno gratiae 1614 >> (On publication: Anno gratiae MDCXIV) >> >> Transcribe years other than Gregorian or Julian as they appear. >> >> , an VII 1798 >> (On publication: An VII, 1798) >> >> Optionally, if it is considered important to retain in the catalog record >> the exact expression of the date, transcribe the date as it appears in roman >> numerals and add the date in arabic numerals in square brackets. >> >> , MDCLVI [1656] >> >> Fictitious or incorrect dates. When the year of publication or printing is >> known to be fictitious or is incorrect, transcribe it as it appears and add >> the real or correct year in square brackets. (If the full imprint is >> fictitious or incorrect, apply 4A4.) >> >> , DMLII [i.e. 1552] >> >> Juliet and I have discussed these rules and have decided that we will follow >> what DCRM will be doing in other formats, especially (G) and (B). Before we >> change what we have, the committee should consider whether any changes are >> to be made to DCRM. Specifically, >> >> 1. Why change Roman numerals to arabic, without brackets, only when the >> numerals appear as Gregorian or Julian years? >> >> 2. And only those Gregorian or Julian years that are not erroneous or >> misprinted? >> >> 3. What is the reason for not transcribing Roman numerals as Roman numerals >> no matter what they stand for in the imprint? >> >> 4. Is the date not a transcribed area? >> >> The simplest solution would seem to be to transcribe what is there, >> bracketing if needed the arabic numeral. Optionally, if the Roman numerals >> are not considered important, bracket their translation into arabic >> numerals. The rule concerning Roman numerals would be much simpler. >> >> How do the rest of you feel? >> >> >> >> Jane Gillis | Rare Book Cataloger| Sterling Memorial Library >> Yale University | New Haven CT 06520 >> (203)432-8383 (voice) | (203)432-7231 (fax) | jane.gillis@ yale.edu > > From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Sat May 5 19:12:35 2001 From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Patrick J. Russell) Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 11:12:35 -0700 Subject: PJR Responding to list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C0D554.49D467C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all: Tis getting close to meeting/email discussion time I now. But just to let you know I will be out of town rafting/hiking Grand Canyon, etc. May 9-June 4 == no PC's on the Colorado! Will get back to you all after June 4 on any comments coming my way during my holiday. See you in San Francisco! Patrick ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C0D554.49D467C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi=20 all:

Tis=20 getting close to meeting/email discussion time I now. But just to = let you=20 know I will be out of town rafting/hiking Grand Canyon, etc. May 9-June = 4 =3D=3D no=20 PC's on the Colorado!

Will=20 get back to you all after June 4 on any comments coming my way during my = holiday.

See=20 you in San Francisco!

Patrick

------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C0D554.49D467C0-- From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Sat May 5 22:56:00 2001 From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Patrick J. Russell) Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 14:56:00 -0700 Subject: Overall format of DCRM: review for discussion In-Reply-To: <719560B7C2FA42439FA82600578CC5370CF15B@portia.folger.edu> Message-ID: Hi all: Not sure I remarked specifically on Deborah's point before, but I TOTALLY AGREE. And in some specially collections not only is it DCR(M) and related stuff, but also APPM, GIHC,Maps mAnual, etc. I do think we need to reach a suitable "marriage" between theory/layout and realities of actual use by catalogers and other processing staff. As to Jain's other remarks == very helpful in putting a realistic perspective on things. Patrick -----Original Message----- From: owner-dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu [mailto:owner-dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu]On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2001 7:36 AM To: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Subject: RE: Overall format of DCRM: review for discussion I think Jain makes some very good points, and I definitely would like to see either 1) more discussion on the intended format, or 2) an explicit acceptance of the idea of separate manuals. Let me contribute to the discussion. I was surprised to see Jain leave off the biggest CON to a unified, AACR2-like organization: adding yet another layer of documentation to the cataloging process. I have never been happy with the current organization of AACR2, with having to consult both chapters 1 and 2 in order to do descriptive cataloging of a modern book. With rare books, we have another layer: DCRB on top of AACR2 chapters 1 & 2. I am not telling any of you anything new. With a DCRM single manual concept, I would have to consult AACR2 chapters 1 and 2, DCRM(G), and DCRM(B) in order to catalog a rare book. This is too much. And of course it doesn't even begin to take into account the other sources of documentation: LCRI's, LCSH, SCM, MARC, thesauri. I am not opposed general *principles* being developed that apply to all rare materials covered by DCRM, but general *rules* in addition to specialized rules? I really don't think that approach commends itself to coherent cataloging documentation. Our colleagues will not thank us. Deborah J. Leslie Head of Cataloging Folger Shakespeare Library 201 East Capitol Street, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20003 202.675-0369 (phone) 202.675-0328 (fax) djleslie@folger.edu -----Original Message----- From: JAIN FLETCHER [mailto:jfletchr@library.ucla.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:22 PM To: DCRBlist Cc: Cape, Stephen; Lorimer, Nancy; Tabb, Bruce; Wolfe, Charlotte; Boorman, Stanley Subject: Overall format of DCRM: review for discussion Hello, BSCers, I am sending this message because I became concerned at our last meeting about a possible trend I thought observed there to re-consider the format of DCRM. This emerged first when we were discussing the language in DCRM (trying to keep it in line with that of AACR2). At one point, as Bob spoke about it, he said he realized that he kept visualizing DCRM in the format that AACR2 currently has: a general chapter for descriptive rules with ensuing chapters for the different materials covered. At first he apologized for describing DCRM in a format we had not chosen, but then said that maybe we ought to consider a single volume after all. A similar point came out a bit later, as we were discussing trying to maintain identical rule numbering across materials. There appeared to be a general agreement at the meeting to the idea of having a single volume. Before agreement to this idea becomes much stronger, I would like to re-visit the points I made at ALA mid-winter 2000, which had convinced the Cte to opt for the separate manuals. I hope that, if needed, this will engender further discussion and a final vote. Whatever we finally decide, I would like our resolution (with rationale) to appear on the DCRB revision page, so that our direction is clear and all of the Working Groups can plan accordingly. In reviewing my notes from that meeting, I notice that I made the following points, before talking about the PROS and CONS of each approach: -- Advocate no attempt at rule number correlation beyond area designations (this resolve seems to have vacillated again at the past meeting) -- Advocate that we have separate designations for each material type (as we have since decided, e.g., B for books, PM for printed music, etc.), whether DCRM's format ends up being a single book or a manual. This way the rules can be unambiguously referenced; these designations also have implications for the $e of the 040. Also, before I presented the PROS and CONS at that meeting, I reminded everyone that I was not yet addressing the medium by which these rules would likely be delivered, but mentioned that it would probably be both print and electronic. The implications of either or both of these possibilities should be weighed as we consider the format of DCRM. Now is probably the time to discuss that matter thoroughly, as well. Considerations for a single volume, with a chapter for each format: PROS -- Would have an overall chapter for general rules, which should help shorten ensuing chapters -- Would have an all-inclusive glossary and index -- Appendices ("Early letter forms"; "Minimal level records") would cover all materials CONS -- Would be humungous! -- To help keep size down, the creators of rules for each material would be under the gun to keep their chapters as brief as possible. This would mean they would have to comb carefully through the wording of their chapter to delete repetitive instructions; they would probably also be asked to use as few examples as possible. All of this can lead to an obscuring of clarity for non-book format users. -- Because of the fewer materials being considered in DCRM, it would be impossible to align chapter numbering with that of AACR2 (alternative proposal: the chapters could be headed with material name and the rule numbers preceded with each material's acronym [e.g., PM0A, B5B5]). Considerations for having a separate manual for each material: PROS -- Each could provide an introductory chapter, which would not necessarily be a chapter of general rules, but one giving the overarching principles for DCRM rules (such as the importance of transcription; information suited to the material and its own rare/special issues -- There would be room for a sufficient number of examples appropriate to the material -- There would be room for "instructional text" (helpful for non-book catalogers unfamiliar with rare/special material cataloging) CONS (or, "challenges") -- Glossary, index, appendices, etc., would have to be repeated for each manual but "weeded" to include only useful terminology appropriate to the material -- Each rule would have to be fully stated, with its language in line with that of the other manuals Some follow-up considerations: I think we need to remember that most of the users of the rules for the non-book formats will come from a relatively small pool of catalogers who are often located in areas away from a special collections or a main cataloging department. Putting these rules out in a large (possibly expensive) single volume would possibly prevent these people from acquiring it for their own locations. Even if DCRM were to be put out in one volume in electronic format, it is likely that these same people would print or download only the chapter useful to them, thus missing out on the full context given elsewhere within. Having a fully self-contained manual for each format (whether in print, electronic or both) would solve most concerns raised here. Jain Fletcher Cataloger, Dept. of Special Collections A1713 YRL Research Library - UCLA Box 951575 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1575 v: (310) 825-2422 f: (310) 206-1864 From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Sat May 19 20:29:27 2001 From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Jane Gillis) Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 15:29:27 -0400 Subject: DCRM(S) Message-ID: <4.1.20010519151810.00a84938@jgillis.mail.yale.edu> A revised DCRM(S) is now ready for comment. We have been working on this for some time and have taken all your comments into account. Parts of DCRM(S) have been completely revised, rewritten, pulled apart and put back togerther. The Roman numeral date rule has not been changed. It will be changed if it is decided that we want the rule in DCRM to remain the same as in DCRB. We also might change rules regarding imprint depending on what happens with the change in Chapter 12 (Serials) of AACR2. We await your comments: http://www.library.yale.edu/conser/documents/dcrs.html Juliet and Jane Juliet McLaren Project Head, Early Serials English Short-Title Catalogue Center for Bibliographical Studies and Research University of California - Riverside e-mail: juliet@citrus.ucr.edu FAX: (909) 787-4120 Tel: (909) 787-5841 Jane Gillis | Rare Book Cataloger| Sterling Memorial Library Yale University | New Haven CT 06520 (203)432-8383 (voice) | (203)432-7231 (fax) | jane.gillis@ yale.edu From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Fri May 4 06:33:23 2001 From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Patrick J. Russell) Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 22:33:23 -0700 Subject: DCRM(S) area 4 In-Reply-To: <4.1.20010321133518.00a5e288@jgillis.mail.yale.edu> Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C0D421.10214900 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry about my delay in replying, trying to iron out retirement details, adjusting to new situation, andworking part time at Grad. Theological Union Library (Berkeley). However, here goes on Serials (not my forte) i agree basically with Jane's point on Roman numerals, and with the need to transribe addresses. Also, I agree that as much as possible we should be consistent acroos "formats" (books, serials, maps, etc.) Of course this is not always possible, but many variations seem to me arbitrary, and confusing to user of the catalog, let alone time consuming for the cataloger to figure out which "convention" to follow. As to "what" should be $b or $c (the "moon" instance) to some extent this is question of interpretation and context. I'll take the person's word for it that in the case in point "sign of the moon" refers to date(s), but it could, in a certain context, be an address or "name" of a place of ... Agree that if "date" data, should go in $c. Patrick -----Original Message----- From: owner-dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu [mailto:owner-dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu]On Behalf Of Jane Gillis Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 10:36 AM To: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Subject: Re: DCRM(S) area 4 I am sending this again. Don't know if everyone got it. While everyone is thinking about Juliet's question on area 4, may I add another concerning Roman numerals? Bob pointed out that DCRM(S) differed from DCRB in the area of Roman numerals, which are: Roman numerals. When roman numerals appear as Gregorian or Julian years, change them to arabic numerals unless they are erroneous or misprinted. , anno gratiae 1614 (On publication: Anno gratiae MDCXIV) Transcribe years other than Gregorian or Julian as they appear. , an VII 1798 (On publication: An VII, 1798) Optionally, if it is considered important to retain in the catalog record the exact expression of the date, transcribe the date as it appears in roman numerals and add the date in arabic numerals in square brackets. , MDCLVI [1656] Fictitious or incorrect dates. When the year of publication or printing is known to be fictitious or is incorrect, transcribe it as it appears and add the real or correct year in square brackets. (If the full imprint is fictitious or incorrect, apply 4A4.) , DMLII [i.e. 1552] Juliet and I have discussed these rules and have decided that we will follow what DCRM will be doing in other formats, especially (G) and (B). Before we change what we have, the committee should consider whether any changes are to be made to DCRM. Specifically, 1. Why change Roman numerals to arabic, without brackets, only when the numerals appear as Gregorian or Julian years? 2. And only those Gregorian or Julian years that are not erroneous or misprinted? 3. What is the reason for not transcribing Roman numerals as Roman numerals no matter what they stand for in the imprint? 4. Is the date not a transcribed area? The simplest solution would seem to be to transcribe what is there, bracketing if needed the arabic numeral. Optionally, if the Roman numerals are not considered important, bracket their translation into arabic numerals. The rule concerning Roman numerals would be much simpler. How do the rest of you feel? Jane Gillis | Rare Book Cataloger| Sterling Memorial Library Yale University | New Haven CT 06520 (203)432-8383 (voice) | (203)432-7231 (fax) | jane.gillis@ yale.edu ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C0D421.10214900 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

i=20 agree basically with Jane's point on Roman numerals, and with the need = to=20 transribe addresses.

Patrick

-----Original Message-----
From: = owner-dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu=20 [mailto:owner-dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu]On Behalf Of Jane=20 Gillis
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 10:36 = AM
To:=20 dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu
Subject: Re: DCRM(S) area=20 4

I am sending this again. = Don't know=20 if everyone got it.

While everyone is thinking about Juliet's = question=20 on area 4, may I add another concerning Roman numerals?

Bob = pointed out=20 that DCRM(S) differed from DCRB in the area of Roman numerals, which=20 are:

Roman=20 numerals. When roman numerals appear as Gregorian or Julian = years,=20 change them to arabic numerals unless they are erroneous or=20 = misprinted.

,= =20 anno gratiae 1614
(On publication: Anno gratiae = MDCXIV)

Transcribe=20 years other than Gregorian or Julian as they=20 = appear.

,=20 an VII 1798
(On publication: An VII,=20 = 1798)
        <= BR>Optionally,=20 if it is considered important to retain in the catalog record the = exact=20 expression of the date, transcribe the date as it appears in roman = numerals=20 and add the date in arabic numerals in square=20 = brackets.

,=20 MDCLVI [1656]

Fictitious or incorrect dates. When the = year of=20 publication or printing is known to be fictitious or is incorrect, = transcribe=20 it as it appears and add the real or correct year in square = brackets. =20 (If the full imprint is fictitious or incorrect, apply=20 = 4A4.)
        <= X-TAB>
,=20 DMLII [i.e. 1552]

Juliet and I have discussed these = rules and=20 have decided that we will follow what DCRM will be doing in other = formats,=20 especially (G) and (B). Before we change what we have, the = committee=20 should consider whether any changes are to be made to DCRM. =20 Specifically,

1. Why change Roman numerals to arabic, without = brackets,=20 only when the numerals appear as Gregorian or Julian years? =

2.=20 And only those Gregorian or Julian years that are not erroneous or=20 misprinted?

3. What is the reason for not transcribing Roman = numerals=20 as Roman numerals no matter what they stand for in the = imprint?

4. Is=20 the date not a transcribed area?

The simplest solution would = seem to be=20 to transcribe what is there, bracketing if needed the arabic=20 numeral.   Optionally, if the Roman numerals are not = considered=20 important, bracket their translation into arabic numerals. The = rule=20 concerning Roman numerals would be much simpler.

How do the = rest of you=20 feel?

Jane Gillis | Rare Book Cataloger| Sterling Memorial = Library

Yale University | New Haven CT 06520

(203)432-8383 (voice) | (203)432-7231 (fax) | jane.gillis@=20 yale.edu

Hi=20 all:

Tis=20 getting close to meeting/email discussion time I now. But just to = let you=20 know I will be out of town rafting/hiking Grand Canyon, etc. May 9-June = 4 =3D=3D no=20 PC's on the Colorado!

Will=20 get back to you all after June 4 on any comments coming my way during my = holiday.

See=20 you in San Francisco!

Patrick