[DCRB-L] Revised posting re 440

[Richard Noble]

Since I think the matter is important, I've rewritten a previous posting, 
adding a point involving DCRM(S):

Though I was unable to attend meetings of the Bibliographic Standards 
Committee at Midwinter, I did take part in some informal conversation about 
AACR2 12.1 and its implications for transcription in the 440 field. Exact 
transcription is a basic principle of DCRB/DCRM(B). Unfortunately BDRB and 
DCRB have nothing to say about series, on the basis that series is not 
generally an issue in the description of "early printed monographs". DCRB 6 
simply refers the cataloguer to AACR2. Nevertheless, we have now an 
opportunity, especially as we recognize that there are good reasons for 
consciously extending DCRM(B) to later printing, to address a glaring 
inconsistency in our treatment of this one portion of transcribed data.

We have a model in ISBD(A), which, though it refers the cataloger to 
ISBD(S) "for an understanding of the elements pertaining to the area", does 
prescribe transcription consistent with the rest of the record:

"6.1.1 The title proper of the series or sub-series corresponds to the 
title proper in the bibliographic description of the series or sub-series 
when it is described as a serial according to the provisions of area 1 of 
ISBD(S). The provisions of area 1 in ISBD(A) are applied to the 
transcription of the data selected for the title proper of the series."

That's pretty straightforward, and I would suggest that in this, as in 
other respects, DCRM(B) ought to follow its precursors in attempting to 
conform as closely as possible to ISBD(A). Moreover, if rules for serial 
title data are to be applied in this area, it would certainly be 
appropriate to follow the rules for area 1 in DCRM(S). As to MARC, the 
490/8XX array functions perfectly well for descriptive purposes, though it 
may not serve as well as 245/246/240 for the comprehensive indexing of 
variants.

General note: The assumption behind DCRB area 6 is a bit unfortunate. There 
was never any historically valid reason to limit the rules to the "early 
printed monographs" (usually interpreted as meaning the "hand press 
period", which is actually a rather foggy notion), since 
scholarly/historical/artifactual treatment of all printed books depends on 
the same attention to the physical construction of the object and the 
genetics of its printed surfaces, and the bibliographical relationships 
that are ascertained from such evidence. At this point in the history of 
the printed codex, the distinction between hand-press and machine-press 
printing seems increasingly jejune--merely a way of avoiding the 
complexities introduced, gradually, by way of cloned and reusable printing 
surfaces, machine composition, publisher bindings and binding issues, etc. 
etc., which if anything require even greater attention to the details of 
subtler variations (one can easily be deceived by how closely significantly 
variant C19 or C20 books may resemble each other, or be deceived by 
conspicuous but otherwise unimportant variation). The BSC has done well in 
its revision process to minimize this false distinction, while at the same 
time facing the peculiar problems involved in cataloging "later printed 
monographs". The series area is certainly a peculiar problem.

RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOK CATALOGUER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-2093 : RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU