[DCRB-L] WG3: Physical description area

Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:10:22 -0500

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C302.50877144
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

5B5. With the advent of publishers' bindings, can we assume that most =
commercial advertisements were in fact issued with the book? I'm afraid =
I don't see the value of these rules. I also want to consider =
eliminating the instruction to include mention of advertisements in the =
statement of extent, something I hadn't thought of before I looked at =
these gymnastics to get catalogers not to do something.=20

5B9. The statement of extent provides a count for every leaf in the book =
excluding those added in the binding. You can't leave off counting them =
in the extent just because you can't figure out whether they're plates =
or not. You have to choose. Therefore, you might give a default (e.g., =
if impossible to determine the nature of a book's illustrations,  count =
them as pages or leaves of plates if unnumbered, or as pages or leaves =
of text if included in the pagination).

5C3. I find this section problematic. What is the difference between a =
chromolithograph and a colored lithograph? There is no such thing as a =
"col. wood engraving", because it could only be printed in one color, =
and any hand-coloring is considered copy-specific. I also would try to =
discourage catalogers from counting and listing the various types of =
illustration techniques in the 300. If it's that important, it can be =
elaborated in a note. Otherwise, the statement should be something like =
$b ill. (steel engravings, lithographs)

It was also the case that many HP books with hand-colored ills. were =
issued that way by the publisher, so the principle should hold =
regardless of whether we're talking about HP or MP books. I've never =
heard anyone explain it, but I assume that hand-coloring is always =
considered copy-specific because it is not printed in any way. I'd love =
to hear from anyone with more knowledge on this matter.

Deborah J. Leslie
Chair, RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee
Head of Cataloging
Folger Shakespeare Library
201 East Capitol St., SE
Washington, DC 20003
202.675-0369
djleslie@folger.edu
www.folger.edu

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C302.50877144
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
6.0.6249.1">
<TITLE>WG3: Physical description area</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->

5B5. With the advent of publishers' bindings, =
can we assume that most commercial advertisements were in fact issued =
with the book? I'm afraid I don't see the value of these rules. I also =
want to consider eliminating the instruction to include mention of =
advertisements in the statement of extent, something I hadn't thought of =
before I looked at these gymnastics to get catalogers not to do =
something.

5B9. The statement of extent provides a count =
for every leaf in the book excluding those added in the binding. You =
can't leave off counting them in the extent just because you can't =
figure out whether they're plates or not. You have to choose. Therefore, =
you might give a default (e.g., if impossible to determine the nature of =
a book's illustrations,&nbsp; count them as pages or leaves of plates if =
unnumbered, or as pages or leaves of text if included in the =
pagination).

5C3. I find this section problematic. What is =
the difference between a chromolithograph and a colored lithograph? =
There is no such thing as a &quot;col. wood engraving&quot;, because it =
could only be printed in one color, and any hand-coloring is considered =
copy-specific. I also would try to discourage catalogers from counting =
and listing the various types of illustration techniques in the 300. If =
it's that important, it can be elaborated in a note. Otherwise, the =
statement should be something like $b ill. (steel engravings, =
lithographs)

It was also the case that many HP books with =
hand-colored ills. were issued that way by the publisher, so the =
principle should hold regardless of whether we're talking about HP or MP =
books. I've never heard anyone explain it, but I assume that =
hand-coloring is always considered copy-specific because it is not =
printed in any way. I'd love to hear from anyone with more knowledge on =
this matter.

Deborah J. Leslie

<BR><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Chair, RBMS Bibliographic Standards =
Committee</FONT>

<BR><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Head of Cataloging</FONT>

<BR><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Folger Shakespeare Library</FONT>

<BR><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">201 East Capitol St., SE</FONT>

<BR><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Washington, DC 20003</FONT>

<BR><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">202.675-0369</FONT>

<BR><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">djleslie@folger.edu</FONT>

<BR><A HREF=3D"file://www.folger.edu"><U><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" =
FACE=3D"Arial">www.folger.edu</FONT></U></A>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C302.50877144--