[DCRB-L] RE: Names of publishers

[Lucy Marks]

I agree whole-heartedly with every point in this "screed," particularly
the idea that 
the catalogue be viewed as a scholarly bibliographical resource, and
generally try to make my transcriptions reflect this approach. 

Lucy Marks
Rare Books Cataloguer
Drew University Library



> Deborah's accustomed to my somewhat non-orthodox thinking, so she'll
> just roll her eyes at the following screed:
> 
> In the course of a recent non-library cataloguing project, I rejoiced
> several times that the Bodleian cataloguers had elected to transcribe
> imprints in full, including addresses--and there they were in the
> "WorldCat". Addresses change over time, and can provide invaluable
> evidence for dating undated materials. As records that include them
> accumulate in a database, we find ourselves with a historical resource
> that Plomer couldn't even have dreamed of. The same applies in the
> case of transcribing all names in a conger, rather than the supremely
> frustrating "[and 5 others]". It also applies to the wording of
> imprints, in itself a matter of considerable interest; the more we
> accumulate, the more we know, and the time to do the accumulating is
> when we have the items in hand. We are at that moment in a privileged
> position to contribute importantly to historical bibliography.
> Frankly, as a bibliographically inclined cataloguer, I've never
> understood how imprints differ from titles enough to justify the
> omission of this information. I find it intellectually incoherent.
> 
> The whole purpose of DCRM is to address the very different approach
> that we take to the marks on the page as historical artifact and
> historical evidence. It is different enough to have encountered
> resistance when the rules were first being devised--at a time when we
> were still mostly producing card sets, before it was clear how much
> more powerful and flexible our new forms of data storage and
> management could be. The resulting compromises are mostly unfortunate.
> I am much more interested in the spirit of DCRM than I am in the
> spirit of AACR, which properly serves different purposes in a
> different context. My hope for the BSC has always been that it could
> represent and advance the interests of bibliographical scholarship, to
> the extent that the catalogue--in the widest sense--is itself a
> scholarly bibliographical resource. We can do so by at least
> maximizing a certain permissiveness in the treatment of "other"
> information.
> 
> (Peter Blayney has recently remarked rather savagely on the omission
> of privilege statements in imprints--it is not a trivial matter.
> Another scholar, John Buchtel, recently lamented, on exlibris, the
> omission of dedicatees. One might also mention sermon texts, which are
> supremely relevant title information. I've also rejoiced when
> cataloguers include all the honorifics, degrees, positions, and
> encomia attached to authors' names in statements of responsibility:
> the bibliographic database can be one of our most comprehensive
> resources for authority work, after all, and that purpose is not well
> served by the cataloguer mania for knowing just what information to
> suppress.)
> 
> Of course, anyone who followed the recent autocat thread on the death
> of MARC and especially the introduction of databases like XOBIS will
> suspect that this is merely a death rattle.
> 
> At 11/7/02    12:34 PM, you wrote:
> 
> > As to DCRB conforming with basic AACR, we might be able to make an
> > argument that it conforms with the AACR's spirit. Given that precise
> > t.p. transcription is needed for accurate description and
> > identification of hand-pressed books (or to cite the FRBR user
> > tasks: "finding, identifying, and selecting"), we can't cut down
> > there. However, we do generally omit addresses, with the mark of
> > omission.
> 
> RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN
> UNIVERSITY
> PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-2093 :
> RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU