Meeting Notes

Bibliographic Standards Committee Manuscripts Working Group

Folger Shakespeare Library Meeting 2010

October 17-19, 2010

Present: Alison Bridger (Folger Shakespeare Library), Diane Ducharme (Yale University), Kate Moriarty (Saint Louis University, recorder), Jennifer Nelson (Robbins Collection, Law Library, UC Berkeley), Margaret Nichols (Cornell University, chair), Elizabeth O’Keefe (The Morgan Library), Heather Wolfe (Folger Shakespeare Library).

Area 2: Edition or Version Area

• We changed the name of the area back to “Edition Area.”
• We decided not to use the area. Area 2 currently reads in its entirety:

“No general use of this area is made for manuscripts. If an edition statement is present on the title page, colophon, or caption, record this information in a note (see Area 7X.X).”

• Discussion:
• Pros of excluding Area 2:
• The definitions of edition we reviewed (DCRM(B) and AACR2) emphasize a change in the physical process, an aspect that does not apply to manuscripts since they are unique items. Editions can also include a change in content and, for this reason, we included the instruction to record it in a note if found on the title page, colophon, or caption.
• A transcription or copy of the 5^th edition of a work does not make the manuscript the 5^th edition.
• If we kept Area 2 we would need to be extremely clear on when it applies since there is a high likelihood for confusion.
• Cons of excluding Area 2:
• We lose some FRBR functionality in being unable to pull together the manifestations of a work and collocating manuscript “editions” with their corresponding published editions. For example, galleys that say “revised edition” or a proof of a second edition .
• In the handwritten environment a work might have been revised and “second edition” written on it. Should that be recorded?

Area 4: Place and Date of Production Area

• We changed the title of the area to Place and Date of Production Area.
• 4A2. Sources of information: We changed the 2^nd paragraph to instruct: in cases of exact reproductions, use this area to record information relating to the reproduction, not the original.
  
• 4B Place of production
• We included larger jurisdictions in our examples to match RDA practice.
• The issue of place of compilation/assembly (which also applies to date of compilation/assembly, see 4C2.4) came up and we considered writing a rule to include it in a note if considered important, but we have not added it to the rules yet.
• We will add “Creation v. Production” to the glossary and may also include a discussion on this in the Introduction. We also want to emphasize in the Introduction that many manuscripts do not have information on the place of production and that it is much easier to obtain date information.
• We need to look for examples of 4B4 Fictitious or incorrect places of production.
• 4C Date element
• We divided the section into
• Dated and Datable manuscripts (datable is defined in a footnote)
• Inclusive and bulk dates
• Conjectural dates
• Copyright dates
• 4C2 Dated and datable manuscripts
• We collapsed and moved to this section all of the adjustments to dates (fictitious or incorrect dates, Julian/Old Style, etc.) along with their examples.
• We added rule 4C2.4 on copies. If the date of production differs from the date of creation, record in Area 4 the date of production. Record date of creation in the devised title, if considered important. For formal titles, record date of creation in a note, if considered important.
• 4C4 Conjectural date of creation
• The main discussion centered on the issue of expressing a decade and a century.
  
• Do we go with RDA and express them as “between 1890 and 1899”; “between 1800 and 1899”?
• Or do we go with a format that many archivists use in EAD and express them as “1890s”; “1800s”?
• We decided to write a position paper on this for discussion at the Bib Standards Committee Midwinter 2011 meeting. We also want to present it to SAA. It was suggested that we could submit an article for SAA’s Description Section newsletter.
• We discussed and decided to keep the rule on making every effort to supply a conjectural date.
• 4C7 Copyright dates
• We would like to submit a proposal to the editorial guidelines that the wording of the last line of DCRM(B) 4D6.2 be changed from “if it cannot be reproduced using available typographic facilities” to “if it cannot be reproduced typographically” in order to sound less antiquated
• We need to go through Area 4 to make sure all of our “see” references are correct.

Area 1

• We did a general review of Area 1 to clean it up.
• We need to go through this area to make sure all of our “see” references are correct.
• Copies: Where does the date of creation go? (Date of production goes in Area 4)
• For devised titles, the date of creation goes in the title, if considered important.
• For formal titles, record the date of creation in a note, if considered important. The date cannot be included in the formal title since it is a transcription element, nor can it go in the material type because it would lead to different instructions for devised and formal titles.
• We added all of this to rule 4C2.4. Do we need to also include it in 1B and 1C?
• 1A Preliminary rule:
• We switched the order of 1A3.1 and 1A3.2 so that “items without a title page, colophon, or caption” precedes “items with a title page, colophon, or caption."
• Liz created a decision tree based on whether or not a title page, etc. is present. We may incorporate this at some point.
• 1B Devised title:
• We need to add Devised title and Supplied title to the glossary. We distinguish between the two which causes our definition of supplied title to differ from DACS’s.
  
• Devised title: a made-up title
• Supplied title: a title supplied from a reference source, for example; not made up by the cataloger/archivist
• 1B2 Correspondence (including petitions): We discussed the possibility of giving more direction: should we prescribe that the form of document (e.g. Letter) come first in the title or a personal name? Most of the examples in DACS start with a personal, family, or corporate name and archivists may be more likely to use that practice. Some catalogers prefer to start the title with the type of document followed by the name to avoid ambiguity, for example: “Letter from Brigham Young” vs. “Brigham Young letter.” Both are common searches for researchers. To avoid the situation of archivists/catalogers having to remember two different systems, one for DACS, another for DCRM(MSS), we did not add any prescribing language. To match the section’s heading, we rearranged the examples so that the letters appear first, then the petitions.
• We need a 20^th century example.
• 1B3 Legal documents: For the optional components, we changed “Place of creation” to “Place of creation and/or jurisdiction."
• 1C Formal title:
• We started to reorder this section so that it flows more logically. We will probably follow DCRM(B) closely but were not able to finish. Everyone will look at 1C and share ideas on structure.
• We currently have a separate rule for each of the three locations of a title proper. We might move the instructions for these into the 1C preliminary rule. Jenny will upload the document so that we can each consider this further before Midwinter 2011. Current rules:
  
•   1C2.5. Title proper from title page, colophon, or caption
•   1C2.6. Title proper from elsewhere in the manuscript or from accompanying material
•   1C2.7. Title proper from reference or other sources
• We may move much of the transcription instructions from Area 0 to the preliminary rule of 1C since this is the only transcription element for manuscripts.
• We currently have three sources of formal title. Is two enough: 1) title page, colophon, or caption; and 2) other (includes from elsewhere in the manuscript and from reference sources)?
• We started a working definition of formal title in the glossary. This is important since we essentially define devised titles as those that are not formal titles. The definition is not complete but so far we have:
  
• Formal title: a formal title is the title of a work as assigned at the point of creation or production, or is historically associated with the work even if assigned at a later date. A formal title typically appears on the manuscript’s title page, colophon, or caption.
• We need to make sure that Title proper, Other title, and Alternative title are well-defined.
• 1C1.2.3. Pre-modern or irregular spelling in formal title: now reads “Pre-modern or irregular spelling, or misspelling in formal title."
  

Other

• Style decision: In the examples, when using a quote in a note, we will use quotation marks rather than a colon introducing the quote with no quotation marks.
• The rules have NEED EXAMPLES where additional examples are needed.
• At the end of the meeting, Jenny uploaded the three new documents to the wiki. They are Version 10 of areas 1, 2, and 4.

Assignments (repeated from Assignments page)

• By Early November:
• We will submit Area 4 and an Area 4 position paper to the Bib Standards Committee for review and discussion at Midwinter 2011.
  
• Everyone: Review version 10 of Area 4 (already on the wiki) as soon as possible.
• Alison: Will write the position paper on Area 4 dates. The issue to be addressed is conjectured dates for decades and centuries. Do we follow RDA? DACS? How will the various methods affect archivists and catalogers?

• Other:
• Area 1 is almost finished.
  
• Everyone: Review Area 1, in particular the new structure of 1C. Does it make sense? Does text need to be changed to accommodate it?
• Method: Since we may each come up with different structures of Area 1C and may be moving things around, save the version 10 document (available on the wiki) to your computer, use track changes, and circulate the documents by email for now, to avoid wiki chaos.
• We will work on Area 5 at Midwinter 2011.
• Everyone: Review Area 5 in preparation for the meeting
• Diane: Will follow up on updating examples with dates where needed.
• Margaret: Will continue working on Area 7.

Submitted by Kate Moriarty, December 23, 2010