Fwd: DCRM (S) Area 0--Chief Source

[Jane Gillis]

At 04:15 PM 4/9/2002 -0400, Ann Copeland  wrote:

>>Chief source :
>>
>>Both the table in "0B1: Basis of description", and in "0J: Items with 
>>several chief sources of information" are very
>>clear that the first or earliest part in hand should be used as the chief 
>>source. Then in 1B1 when discussing a case in which there is a typo in 
>>the title proper the option is provided:
>>"Optionally, if the title proper on a later issue has the corrected 
>>title, base the description on that issue or part."
>>This seems a bit contradictory to me.... and not quite kosher. While we 
>>may do such a thing (!), do we really want to provide this as a valid 
>>option? If yes, then maybe following that option we should insist that 
>>the incorrect spelling on the first/earliest be specified as sort of the 
>>reverse of 7B41 :
>>
>>"If the title proper on any issue has typographical error(s) make a note 
>>on the corrected title.
>>
>>      245 04 $aThe post-man and the historical accunt [sic].
>>      246 1  $iCorrected title:$aThe post-man and the historical account."
>>
>>But then one would be forced to provide something like  " 246 1 Earlier 
>>incorrect title: ...  " which is suspicious, indeed!


The optional rule is there for several reasons.  The rule for correcting 
obvious errors is a CONSER rule and will be in the new chapter 12:

"    Correct obvious typographical errors when transcribing the title 
proper and give the title as it appears on the resource in a note.  In any 
case of doubt whether the spelling of a word is incorrect, transcribe the 
spelling as found according to 1.0F.

                 Housing starts
                 Note: Title appears on v.1, no. 1 as: Housing sarts"

We also would want the option to use a later issue if, for example, the 
earliest issue is imperfect (e.g., lacking a wrapper, a title page that is 
mutilated, etc.).  We would make a local note about v. 1, no. 1 being 
imperfect or lacking a wrapper.

The important concept that we are trying to get across is that we should 
use the earliest title page, when possible.  If we don't then we have to 
specify where the title is coming from.  In the case above where the 
earliest issue lacks a wrapper, and the title on the earliest is a very 
short caption title,  and the 23 later issues have wrappers, we want to use 
the wrapper of the next earliest as the chief source.  We will say what the 
description is based on and also give the title that appears on the 
earliest, in a note similar to the one in the revised chapter 12.

Jane