DCRM(S) area 4

[Juliet McLaren]

Dear Bob et al. ~


	Some parts of DCRM(S) area 4 have aroused ire (or at least stress) in
the bosom of our glorious leader, and perhaps others: =20


	<italic>Why put phrases in 260 $b which do not include the names of
printers or publishers? If they seem to relate to a date, they belong in
260 $c.


	Why do we transcribe addresses as a requirement instead of an option
when dcrb does it the other way around?


	</italic>These issues have been rather extensively discussed in
workshops, and between Jane and me.  Some aspects of this problem have
surfaced because of the complaints of users during the 20-odd years of
the EngSTC.

<italic>

	</italic>Jane and I have considered that these concerns might properly
be addressed in the course of revising DCRM(B) and the other parts of the
manual, so that we may agree to adopt a uniform practice.


	We have considered alternatives to the phrasing issue, but keep coming
back to it for very early materials as well as for modern avant-garde
publications.  In the mid-17th century whatever odd phrasing appears in
the imprint area as a substitute for a clear statement of publication is
the <italic>only</italic> form of imprint that exists for many
publications.  Of course it is always possible to substitute:=20
<italic>260 $a [s.l. :$b s.n., $c 1643- .   </italic>To remove "Printed
in the yeere" or other information to the note area (5xx) would seem an
arbitrary and unreasonable burden on users, who are then left with an
invented "imprint" that is both uninformative and relatively useless as a
means of identifying a publication.  The alternative is to add this and
similar phrases  to the 260 $c, which is a contravention of CONSER rules
and serial practice; it also produces searching problems, but is
certainly a more comfortable option for monograph catalogers.  Perhaps we
need to thrash this out for all of DCRM


	Bob's example of something that should go in the date field  is perhaps
not the best one he could have chosen: 	<italic>Published at the full of
the moon,  </italic>may look like a date to some, but it isn't a date;
the moon is full 12 times a year on different days each time.  It is the
only recognizable form of an imprint that this publication has, and when
followed by a year it seems logical to put only the year in the 260 $c.=20
In fact, dcrb is a little fuzzy on this point in two places, first in 4D1
where the attachment of 'printed' may belong to a place, rather than a
date as in:  <italic>London printed ...</italic>; and again where a
statement of date in 4D2 may be perceived as "very long". =20


	If we decide that CONSER rules notwithstanding we need to add "A.D." or
"June 6th" to the year date to bring it into conformity with other parts
of DCRM, we might consider use of the 260$b as a location for a full
imprint that has no names in it for very early materials up to a certain
date (say, 1720) or for avant-garde publications, or as a general option.
=20


	As for the exclusion of addresses, I have a long experience of
user/researcher/scholar complaints about this one, as well as cataloger
complaints.  Identifying the date of publication of a work is often not
possible without a full imprint address. Printers in the US and in
Britain before 1801 moved around frequently as you know.   Work on
printing history and bibliography is seriously hampered by the lack of
addresses as well.  And for 17th century as well as early American
serials, identification of a specific serial requires the fullest
possible transcription of all required elements.  For other early
materials we want to make this fuller transcription a requirement rather
than an option so that it would be more generally adopted.  For many
types of rare materials this also seems to be a discussion useful to the
whole committee.


	This is just more grist for our ever-energetic discussions.  Best,
juliet