2.7 Production Statement: Changing Method of Recording

6JSC/BL/26
31 July 2015

2.7 Production Statement: Changing Method of Recording

 

Submitted by Alan Danskin, British Library

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to 2.7 Production Statement: Changing Method of Recording

  1. Kathy Glennan says:

    While I generally support this paper, I have a number of editorial comments which I will enter separately below.

    I would like to know if CC:DA supports removal of the parallel elements for place & producer. In 6JSC/JSC/ALA/Discussion/4 (2014), we raised this question, and both LC and CCC were against it. What is our position on this now?

    • Robert L. Maxwell says:

      I’m not sure I understand why deletion of the parallel elements is necessarily “consistent” with “recording” rather than “transcribing.” Deletion of the elements makes it impossible to “record” parallel elements as parallel elements. And it appears that “recording” doesn’t mean abandoning what’s found on the item. 2.7.2.5 remains telling us to “record” the “form” in the language of the title proper, if forms are found in more than one language. That sounds quite close to “transcribing” to me … So why shouldn’t the cataloger be able to “record” the other forms as well if he/she thinks it’s important for some reason?

  2. Kathy Glennan says:

    Issue raised by new language in 2.7.1.2

    The new 2nd paragraph refers to 2.17.6, to record the source of information in a note. I observe that 2.17.6 currently only permits creating notes about:
    1) Details of the place, producer, or date
    2) Changes in the place, producer, or producer’s name

    If we support this reference, our response should include a revision to 2.17.6 along the lines of what we put forward as 6JSC/ALA/39 — I think.

  3. Kathy Glennan says:

    Curiosities, probably not for the response

    1. I’d like to know if anyone has examples of a “produced” facsimile/reproduction of a “produced” resource. I assume that in most, if not all, cases, a facsimile or reproduction is published.

    2. Can anyone think of a situation when a “produced” resource has a change in production statement?

    In both of these cases, the instructions use boilerplate language, and it’s probably not worth changing/deleting either of these. However, if you disagree — please comment on this!

    • Elizabeth O'Keefe says:

      Mimeographed or photocopied reproductions of handwritten or typed manuscripts are pretty common. You usually don’t get an explicit production statement on the original and an explicit production statement on the reproduction; sometimes you can figure this information out (though the production information for the reproduction is usually not of great interest).

      I can’t off-hand come up with an example of a produced resource with a change in production statement, but would imagine this happens with unpublished serials like family newsletters.

    • Robert L. Maxwell says:

      I suppose a forgery of an oil painting would be an example of a “produced” facsimile/reproduction of a “produced” resource. Or a legitimate hand made copy of an oil painting, perhaps by an art student.

      • Elizabeth O'Keefe says:

        These would be considered new, related works rather than reproductions . A photograph of a painting would be more like a facsimile/reproduction–though even this doesn’t quite work as the equivalent of a facsimile of a textual work, because of what is lost in the image capture (the quality of the color, the texture of the brush strokes, etc, etc).

        • Robert L. Maxwell says:

          Why should the method used to reproduce something have anything to do with whether it’s considered a “reproduction” or not?

          Facsimile is simply defined in RDA as “1. A reproduction simulating the physical appearance of the original in addition to reproducing its content exactly. 2. An illustrative content consisting of an exact copy of an original, usually in the same dimensions as the original, especially of books, documents, prints, and drawings. Today often reproduced photographically or digitally; in the past, reproduced by engraving or other printmaking process.” The second definition tells how a facsimile is “often” produced but does not require any particular method of reproduction.

          Reproduction is defined as “An exact copy of the content of a resource made by mechanical or electronic means.” Again, no specifics about the method, and “mechanical” is nowhere defined, so I think it could be argued that using any kind of tools (e.g. a paintbrush and canvas) count.

          Why would using an engraver’s burin on a piece of metal plate which is then inked and pressed onto a piece of paper make a “reproduction” when a paintbrush on a piece of canvas would not?

  4. Kathy Glennan says:

    Curiosity, possibly for the response

    2.7.1.4 mentions “a production statement or statements” — but if parallel information won’t be recorded, what else might constitute a 2nd production statement?

  5. Kathy Glennan says:

    General rewording recommendations

    1. Retain all references to RDA 1.8 (see 2.7.1.4, final paragraph; 2.17.6.3, Optional addition). These are instructions about *recording* numbers.

    2. Do not change “changes on” and “a subsequent part” to “is known to have changed on subsequent parts” (for one example see 2.7.1.5.1) — unless the recommendation is to also change the other occurrences of this phrase in RDA. (Toolkit search on “changes on”: 8 hits; search on “a subsequent part”: 10 hits)

    3. Do not change “on the source of information” to “in the source of information” (for one example see 2.7.2.4). RDA Toolkit search: “on the source of information”: 1 hit (8.5.4 — this should be changed!); “in the source of information”: 100 hits.

    4. Do not use “… the agency creating the description” (for an example see 2.7.2.5) — the standard RDA phrase is “… the agency preparing the description”. RDA Toolkit search “creating the description”: 0 hits; “preparing the description”: 17 hits.

    5. Do not change “supply” to “record” in 2.7.2.6. “Supply” means that the cataloger creates something. “Record” means that the data is present in the resource (or, based on 2.7.2.6.5, that RDA tells the cataloger what to record). [At least I think that’s what these words mean — let me know if you disagree!] Alternative: change “record” to “supply” in the renumbered 2.7.2.6.3.

    6. I agree with the change proposed for 2.7.6.5, but the same language also needs to be used in 2.8.6.5, 2.9.6.5, and 2.10.6.5.

    • Robert L. Maxwell says:

      I don’t think I agree with the definition of “record” given above under #5. See my comment on Specific rewording recommendation #5, below.

      • Kathy Glennan says:

        Thanks, Bob. After some additional thought, I now believe that “supply” is only used in “transcribe” instructions, when the cataloger may add information that is not present in the resource.

        That means in #5 above, we should recommend the alternative I noted (change “record” to “supply” in the renumbered 2.7.2.6.3).

  6. Kathy Glennan says:

    Specific rewording recommendation – #1: 2.7.1.4

    In the 2nd paragraph, use the same phrasing as in the proposed 1st paragraph of 2.7.1.2. Correct the instruction reference. (And, as above, retain the reference to 1.8).

    Result:

    Record the place or places of production, producer or producers, and date or dates of production associated with the manifestation in the source of information (see 2.7.1.2). Apply the general guidelines on numbers expressed as numerals or as words (see 1.8).

  7. Kathy Glennan says:

    Specific rewording recommendation – #2: 2.7.2.4

    No other instructions refer to 0.6.4, and the proposed revision here doesn’t tell the cataloger how to make the decision about whether to record all, some, or none of the additional places.

    I recommend the following instead:

    If more than one place of production is named on the source of information, record the additional place names if considered important for identification or access.

  8. Kathy Glennan says:

    Specific rewording recommendation – #3: 2.7.2.5

    I think the 2nd sentence can be reworded to better parallel other RDA instructions (such as 16.2.2.3, which uses “… form most commonly found…”). And as noted above, “creating” needs to be “preparing”.

    The result:

    If this criterion does not apply, record the place name in the language or script in the form most commonly found in gazetteers or other reference sources in a language preferred by the agency preparing the description.

    Note:

    1. I’m certain the phrasing could be better here, but I think this follows RDA style, such as it is. Suggestions for improvement welcomed!

    2. It would be useful to determine what the difference is between “language and script” (RDA Toolkit search: 22 hits) and “language or script” (RDA Toolkit search: 32 hits). This is clearly not germane to this paper, but it could be mentioned in the response anyway.

  9. Kathy Glennan says:

    Specific rewording recommendation – #4: 2.7.2.6

    Replace “is not identified” with “cannot be identified” (to parallel the language in 2.7.4.7).

  10. Kathy Glennan says:

    Specific rewording recommendation – #5: 2.7.4.3

    In the 2nd paragraph, use language that parallels what’s proposed for 2.7.2.3.

    The result:

    If the name as it appears on the resource is known to be fictitious, or requires clarification, record the actual name and make a note giving the fictitious name, etc. (see 2.17.6.3).

    • Robert L. Maxwell says:

      This would be an example of “recording” data not present on the item. Under general wording recommendations part 5, you say “record” means the data is present on the resource. I don’t think that is correct.

  11. Kathy Glennan says:

    Specific rewording recommendation – #6: 2.7.4.5

    No other instructions refer to 0.6.4, and the proposed revision here doesn’t tell the cataloger how to make the decision about whether to record all, some, or none of the additional places.

    I recommend the following instead (to parallel the suggested rewording of 2.7.2.4 above):

    If more than one person, family, or corporate body is named on the source of information as a producer of the resource, record the additional producers’ names if considered important for identification or access.

  12. Kathy Glennan says:

    Specific rewording recommendation – #7: 2.7.4.6

    Change the wording of the 2nd sentence here to match my recommendation for 2.7.2.5.

    The result:

    If this criterion does not apply, record the name in the language or script in the form most commonly found in reference sources in a language preferred by the agency preparing the description.

  13. Kathy Glennan says:

    Specific rewording recommendation – #8: 2.17.6.3

    In the 1st sentence of the optional addition, I don’t think “as they appear” is useful, since this is what “transcription” means. However, something is needed in its place.

    I suggest:

    Transcribe the place of production, producer’s name, and date of production from the resource.

  14. Robert Bratton says:

    The proposed change at 2.7.2.3 (top of page 6) flies in the face of RDA’s “take what you see” spirit. “If the place name as it appears on the resource is known to be fictitious or requires clarification, record the actual place name, and make a note giving the fictitious place name, etc.”

    The same change is proposed for fictitious names of producers (bottom page 8, RDA 2.7.4.3).

    However, in this proposal, a fictitious date is dutifully recorded, with a note about the actual date.

    This is inconsistent to say the least.

  15. Elizabeth O'Keefe says:

    I’m not sure why dates are treated differently from place names and producer names. For the sake of consistency, it would be preferable to apply the same approach to all three types of information.

    Although this proposal certainly does contravene RDA’s “take what you see’ spirit, the deviation is justified by the nature of the material. “Take what you see’ works well for resources that are usually accompanied by reliable information supplied by the publisher; it does not work well for unpublished material, where production information is often lacking, unclear, inaccurate, or just plain unhelpful.

  16. Tina Shrader says:

    A comment from one of my colleagues about the instructions at 2.6.2.1:
    “Do we really need such detailed instructions on where to place the question mark? Can’t it always come at the end of the statement? Does it make a big difference to the user if we put [Bethesda?, Maryland] vs. [Bethesda, Maryland?]”

    I also agree with Robert Bratton that the treatment of fictitious places, names, and dates are inconsistent, and that the proposal does not apply RDA’s principle of representation.

  17. Elizabeth O'Keefe says:

    Specific rewording recommendation – 2.7.2.6:

    Reword the heading as:

    2.7.2.6 Place of Production Uncertain

    And the instruction as:

    If the place of production cannot be identified with certainty, record a probable place of production if it can be determined. Apply the instructions in this order of preference : [as in existing text)

  18. Elizabeth O'Keefe says:

    p. 2, Typo?

    “It has been assumed that the exception at 2.2.4 will now apply to produced / non-self describing resources.”

    The slash should be a comma, referring to resources that are produced AND non-self-describing

  19. Elizabeth O'Keefe says:

    p. 2, definition of “inscription”

    It’s a good idea to add “inscription” to the RDA glossary. I would recommend rewording the proposed definition,

    “Inscription words that are written on or cut into a surface”

    to focus on the act of inscribing, rather than the product, since “inscription”, at least in this context, refers to the activity. It should also be broader than words–so, something like:

    “the act of writing on or cutting text into a surface”

    I think “text” would cover letters, numerals, or symbols that occur in text, but would not apply to e.g. sculpture or woodcarving

  20. Elizabeth O'Keefe says:

    p. 3:

    Shouldn’t the example,

    British Library 2015/7/11

    be presented on two lines instead of one, since it includes two elements, producer and date:

    British Library
    2015/7/11

  21. Elizabeth O'Keefe says:

    p. 8 ff:

    No examples are provided of producer names under 2.7.4. A few would be welcome, e.g.:

    typed by George L. Upshur
    bound by Julia P. Wightman
    etched by J.C. Allen

  22. Matthew Haugen says:

    I received no responses on the DCRM listserv regarding this proposal, so I can’t speak on behalf of the rare materials community, but personally I’m having some trouble with this one. While I agree that transcription does not usually satisfy the same user tasks for manuscripts and other unpublished resources as it does for published resources, I think a production statement, qua “statement,” should be transcribed rather than recorded, if one is concerned about the statement at all. Such statements can serve identification and differentiation purposes even for unpublished resources–even though I know a MS diary is not the same manifestation as another diary, a transcription might help me tell two diaries with otherwise similar descriptions apart.

    Meanwhile, my understanding of JSC’s response to 6JSC/BL Rep/1 was that non-self-describing resources should be treated as the exception–not unpublished resources. There are published resources which are not self-describing, for which publication, manufacture, and distribution data recorded from any source might better serve user tasks. Meanwhile, unpublished resources might also have manufacturer statements (e.g., papermaker’s watermarks, album and copybook statements, etc.) So I’m afraid that this might not resolve the issues the JSC identified re: BL rep/1. Recording is especially appropriate for resources that have nothing to transcribe, whether they are published or unpublished, so treating this exception in 2.7 alone doesn’t seem to solve the problem. In the absence of a statement, recorded elements or relationships to places, agents, etc are an alternative, but even if there are transcribable statements, there are good reasons to record normalized/controlled places and agents, too.

Leave a Reply