Topic 6: Glossary: Title page and Title proper

[Patrick Russell]

Hi all:

Because of pressure of mounting an exhibit at Grad. Theol. Union Library,
Berkeley, I've not been able to respond on DCRB before.  I'll get out over
the weekend a few queries about DCRB/MARC format.

With regard to Bob's point: I think we really need to be clear at a number
of points why DCRB differs from AACR2.  Often its fairly obvious; other
times not so:

Among points I would like to consider on this score are:

T.p. definition

Handling of "leaves" printed on one or both sides sides  (5B1)

"With" Notes (7C190

As a cataloger who works not only with pre-1801 imprints and with a variety
of manuals (dcrb, appm, Betz Graphic materials, Matters Oral History) this
kind of variation for the same kind of information is an irritant, to be
blunt.  Does dcrb really need to differ from AACR2 in "With notes"? Why?

At 05:31 PM 1/7/99 -0700, Robert Maxwell wrote:
>>Title page.  The leaf on which the  %title proper%  appears.  [Stet for
>>remainder.]
>
>I think the definition of title page needs to be quite a bit clearer than
>it currently is, in conjunction with a revision of the rules dealing with
>title page. OC3 states: "For publications issued without a title page ...
>if a single title proper is available in a single source within the
>publication, use this source as the title page substitute." Yet if the
>title page is the leaf on which the title proper appears (and I agree with
>Sandra's change, above), then what need is there for a title page
>substitute? By definition, wherever the title proper appears, that is the
>title page. I assume 0C3 is not contemplating using a binder's title as a
>title page substitute. But aside from the binding, what other "single"
>source other than one of the leaves could contain the title proper?
>
>Further problem with the current definition (quoting): ""title page" refers
>only to the recto of the leaf. (The verso of this leaf is not part of the
>"title page" ...)" Well, suppose the "leaf" on which the "title proper"
>appears is the last leaf, i.e., the colophon. Then the title may appear on
>the verso of the leaf and not the recto. By the DCRB definition of title
>page, the title page may be *any* leaf in the book, recto or verso (at
>least so says the beginning of the rule); the only stipulation is that the
>title proper appear on it. The stipulation that only the recto of the leaf
>may be the title page is inconsistent with the stipulation that the title
>page is the leaf where the title proper appears.
>
>>
>>Title proper.  [Stet, except omit "See also Chief title."]
>
>The definition of title proper vis a vis the definition of title page is
>circular and needs to be hammered out a quite a bit, I think. If the title
>proper is the "chief title of a publication in the form in which it appears
>on the title page (or substitute) [again, is there such a thing as a title
>page substitute?]..." and the title page is the "leaf on which the title
>proper appears," the two definitions are defining each other in a way that
>is not helpful. Can we do something about this?
>
>I also suggest, if we decide that there is no difference between "chief
>title" and "title proper" (as per Sandra's revision of "Chief title"), that
>a part of the revision of "title proper" include removing the word "chief"
>from the first line, so it simply reads "the title of a publication in the
>form ..."
>
>An ultimate (as if!) question: why is it necessary to depart from the very
>simple AACR2 definition of "title proper" ("The chief name of an item,
>including any alternative title but excluding parallel titles and other
>title information")? All the way through this revision, I think we should
>ask ourselves why DCRB needs to depart from AACR2. I personally think the
>AACR2 definition is adequate, at least as a base. And I really can't think
>why rare materials are so "special" that they need to have a different
>definition of title proper from that of other materials. (1) The long bit
>of our definition spelling out that pious invocations etc. are not a part
>of the title proper and (2) the part that says (negatively) that things
>grammatically connected to the title proper are a part of the title proper
>are both clearly covered by the AACR2 rules themselves, on which DCRB is
>based and which are incorporated into DCRB, are they not, if not explicitly
>contradicted by a rule in DCRB?
>
>Bob
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Robert L. Maxwell
>Special Collections and Ancient Languages Cataloger
>6428 Harold B. Lee Library
>Brigham Young University
>Provo, UT 84602
>(801) 378-5568
>robert_maxwell@byu.edu
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>