RDA and Rare Books Cataloging, Part 2

Mary Burns

Mary Burns (mburns6@niu.edu) is a Catalog Librarian and Assistant Professor at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Illinois.

Manuscript submitted December 19, 2016; returned to author for revision February 23, 2017; revised manuscript submitted April 24, 2017; revised manuscript sent for peer review December 4, 2017; revised manuscript submitted February 11, 2018; accepted for publication May 13, 2018.

Editor’s Note: This paper has been published in two parts. Part two includes resource description for a rare book and resumes with 260 $a Place of Publication ; 264 _1 $a Place of Publication ; 264 _3 $a Place of Manufacture and provides the remainder of the description for the rare book Stirpium adversaria nova.

Catalogers using Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials: Books (DCRM(B)) were challenged when the Library of Congress (LC) adopted Resource Description and Access (RDA). DCRM(B) is based on AACR2, which is organized according to International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD) areas. RDA is based on FRBR. As of this writing, the RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee intends to finish an initial version of RBMS Policy Statements for the RDA Toolkit. This paper discusses the creation process of three catalog records for the same rare book developed according to DCRM(B), the PCC-RDA-BSR with rare materials provisions, and RDA with exceptions for early printed resources.

Record Creation Process

260 $a Place of Publication; 264 _1 $a Place of Publication; 264 _3 $a Place of Manufacture

Publication statements on rare books can present some of the most challenging transcription issues for RDA rules. “Londini 1570” is recorded in the scroll at the bottom of Stirpium adversaria nova’s title page (see figure 1). The colophon contains a complete statement of manufacture: “Londini. 1571. Calendis Ianuarijs, excudebat prelum Thomæ Purfœtij, ad Lucretię symbolum” (see figure 2). The source of information for the place of publication element in the DCRM(B) record was identified first. DCRM(B)4A2.1 states:

The prescribed sources of information for the publication, distribution, etc., area are the title page, colophon, other preliminaries, and dust jacket (see introductory section IX.2), in that order of preference. If the information for an element is not present in these sources, any source may be used to supply needed information (see 0G6). If statements belonging to different elements are found in separate sources, combine them to make a complete statement in the publication, distribution, etc., area. However, do not combine statements belonging to a single element when they appear in different sources within the publication.1

The title page and colophon were the sources of information for the publication statement in Stirpium adversaria nova’s DCRM(B) record. This information was taken from the title page. The printer’s name in the colophon functioned as the publisher name element (DCRM(B)4A6).

Stirpium adversaria nova’s PCC-RDA-BSR treated the manufacturer statement in the colophon as a publication statement using a 264 field with second indicator 1. RDA 2.8.1.1 states: “For early printed resources, distribution and manufacture statements relating to booksellers and printers may be treated as publication statements.”2 The PCC-RDA-BSR directs catalogers to RDA 2.8.2 regarding place of publication. RDA 2.8.2 directs catalogers to RDA 2.8.2.2, the rules for sources of information for the place of publication. A list of sources of information in preference order is provided, with the first preference the same as the source of information for the publisher’s name. The publisher’s name preference directs catalogers to RDA 2.8.4.2 for sources of information for the publisher name element. RDA 2.8.4.2 provides a list of sources for the publisher’s name in preference order. The first preference is the same source as the title proper. The second preference was applied, another source within the manifestation. The colophon functioned as the source of information for the place of publication in Stirpium adversaria nova’s PCC-RDA-BSR record. RDA 2.8.4.2 further directs catalogers to RDA 2.2.2. which contains instructions for preferred sources of information that include RDA 2.2.2.2: “Manifestations Consisting of One or More Pages, Leaves, Sheets, or Cards (or Images of One or More Pages, Leaves, Sheets, or Cards).”3 This rule contains an early printed resources exception: “If a source other than a title page, title sheet, or title card (or an image of it) is used as the preferred source of information, make a note on the source of the title proper (see 2.17.2.3 RDA).”4 This rule does not address the need for a note indicating that the colophon was the preferred source of information for the place of publication element. Two 500 field general notes were created for the PCC-RDA-BSR by applying RDA 2.17.7.3: “Make notes on details relating to place of publication, publisher, or date of publication not recorded in the publication statement element, if considered important for identification or access.”5 The first 500 general note recorded place of manufacture and name of the printer and were taken from the colophon for the place of publication element. The second note recorded the complete colophon in normalized form.

The manufacturer statement in the RDA record did not functions as a publication statement as it did in the DCRM(B) record or in the PCC-RDA-BSR by applying RDA 2.8.1.1. The printer’s statement in the colophon was recorded as a single 264 statement of manufacture with a second indicator 3. A different option was considered for recording the publication information in the RDA record before the single statement of manufacture was chosen as the most suitable treatment. It was thought that a 264 _1 field with a publication statement would be developed that transcribed the place and date on the title page and recorded “[Publisher not identified]” in the publisher name element. A second 264 with second indicator 3 would be created to record the statement of manufacture from the colophon.

This two 264 field creation process for Stirpium adversaria nova’s RDA record began with RDA 2.8.1.2, which directs catalogers to sources of information for elements in the publication statement. The first element is the place of publication that directs catalogers to RDA 2.8.2.2, which instructs that the first preference for sources of information recorded in the place of publication element are the same as those for the publisher name element. There is no publisher name on Stirpium adversaria nova’s title page, only a place name and date. The second preference listed in RDA 2.8.2.2 is another source within the manifestation. This preference directs catalogers to the colophon with the complete manufacturer’s statement containing the later date. The decision was then made to create a single 264 field with second indicator 3 in Stirpium adversaria nova’s RDA record. This 264 _3 field recorded the colophon with the manufacturer’s statement.

The single 264 _3 field creation process for Stirpium adversaria nova’s RDA record began with determining the sources of information for the place of manufacture element. RDA 2.10.1 provides basic instructions on recording manufacturer statements. RDA 2.10.1.2 provides instructions for the source of information for manufacturer elements. Catalogers are directed to RDA 2.10.2.2 for sources of information for place of manufacture. The sources are listed in preference order. The first preference listed is the same source as the manufacturer’s name, directing catalogers to RDA 2.10.4.2, which lists sources for the manufacturer’s name in preference order. The second preference, another source within the manifestation, was applied because the colophon was the source of information for the manufacturer statement. This second preference directs catalogers to RDA 2.2.2, preferred source of information, the same rule applied when the place of publication element was developed in the PCC-RDA-BSR. RDA 2.2.2.2 applies to a manifestation consisting of one or more pages, but the early printed resources exception directs catalogers to make a note if the source of the title proper is not the title page. The exception does not address the need for a note to indicate that the source of information for Stirpium adversaria nova’s place of manufacture was the colophon. Two 500 field general notes were recorded in the RDA record. The first 500 note recorded the source of the place of manufacture and manufacturer’s name. The second recorded the colophon in normalized form. RDA 2.17.9.3 instructs: “Make notes on details relating to a place of manufacture, a manufacturer’s name, or a date of manufacture not recorded in the manufacture statement element, if considered important for identification or access.”6 The title page was the source of information for the place of publication in the DCRM(B) record. The sources for the place of publication in the PCC-RDA-BSR and place of manufacture in the RDA record was the colophon. Table 1 summarizes the sources of information for Stirpium adversaria nova’s place of publication elements and place of manufacture element with their related notes.

The transcription of the places of publication and place of manufacture elements for the 260 and 264 fields in Stirpium adversaria nova’s records were developed after the sources of information were identified and the notes necessary to clarify the publication and manufacture statements were recorded. The transcription of the place of publication element for the DCRM(B) record was created first. DCRM(B)4B1.1 states:

Transcribe the names of places associated with publishers, distributors, and booksellers as part of this element. Transcribe the names of places associated with printers and other manufacturers only if appropriate according to the instructions in 4A6 (i.e., when the wording, layout, or typography of the publication suggests that the manufacturer is also functioning as the publisher, distributor, etc.).7

“Londini,” the place of manufacture that functioned as the place of publication, was recorded in the 260 $a element in the DCRM(B) record.

The place of publication element in the PCC-RDA-BSR was transcribed according to RDA 2.8.2.3, which directs catalogers to RDA 2.8.1, Basic Instructions on Recording a Publication Statement. RDA 2.8.1 contains RDA 2.8.1.4: “Transcribe a place of publication and a publisher’s name as they appear on the source of information (see 1.7 RDA).”8 The place of publication elements in Stirpium adversaria nova’s PCC-RDA-BSR and DCRM(B) records were transcribed in the same form, “Londini.” The place of publication element in the PCC-RDA-BSR publication statement was recorded in a 264 _1 $a field.

The PCC-RDA-BSR contains a rare materials provision for the place of publication element that should be noted even though it was not applicable to Stirpium adversaria nova’s record:

Rare materials: Generally transcribe all places of publication (see DCRM(B,C,G,M) 4B6). If a place of publication is known to be fictitious or incorrect, supply a correction in square brackets (see DCRM (B,C,G,M) 4B9).9

The provision’s first part supersedes the RDA core requirement for place of publication. RDA 2.8.2 states: “If more than one place of publication appears on the source of information, only the first recorded is required.”10 The second part of the provision negates the instructions RDA rules contain for transcribing inaccuracies. RDA 1.7.9 states:

When instructed to transcribe an element as it appears on the source, transcribe an inaccuracy or a misspelled word unless the instructions for a specific element indicate otherwise (e.g., exception at 2.3.1.4 RDA). Make a note correcting the inaccuracy if considered important for identification or access (see 2.17 RDA).11

A correction cannot be recorded in square brackets following an inaccuracy according to RDA rules. DCRM(B)4B9 instructs:

If the place of publication, distribution, etc., appearing in the publication is known to be fictitious or incorrect, transcribe it nonetheless and make an explanatory note. If the actual place is known, or can be reasonably surmised, supply a correction in square brackets.12

The place of manufacture element for the RDA record was created after the PCC-RDA-BSR place of publication element was recorded. RDA 2.10.2.3 directs catalogers to RDA 2.10.1, Basic Instructions on Recording a Manufacturer Statement. RDA 2.10.1.4 states: “Transcribe a place of manufacture and a manufacturer’s name as they appear on the source of information (see 1.7 RDA).”13 The place of manufacture was transcribed as “Londini,” in the 264 _3 $a element in the RDA record. Stirpium adversaria nova’s place of publication elements and place of manufacture element were recorded in the same form in the three records, “Londini” (see table 1).

Rare books often present more complicated transcriptions for place of publication, distribution, or manufacture than Stirpium adversaria nova’s place of publication and place of manufacture. DCRM(B) contains special instructions to address them that are not included in the PCC-RDA-BSR or RDA rules. DCRM(B)4B11 states:

Supply in square brackets the name of the place of publication, distribution, etc., using a modern English form of the name, if there is one, when only an address or sign appears in the publication. (Transcribe the address or sign as the publisher, distributor, etc., statement; see 4C4.1) When supplying the place, give a justification in a note if necessary.

[Paris]

(Comment: Imprint reads: “à l’enseigne de l’éléphant,” the trade sign of a Parisian printer).14

Another unique transcription problem that rare books catalogers encounter is statements with two or more places of publication, distribution or manufacture containing grammatically inseparable elements. DCRM(B)4B6.4 states: “Do not, however, transcribe a subsequent place as a place of publication, distribution, etc., if it must be recorded as a grammatically inseparable part of another element.”15 The publication statement example that accompanies this rule would not result in a very clear transcription following RDA rules:

Printed at Worcester, Massachusetts : By Isaiah Thomas : Sold by him in Worcester, by said Thomas and Andrews in Boston, and by said Thomas and Carlisle, in Walpole, Newhampshire.16

The places and names would need to be separated to accommodate the 264 fields necessary to record the booksellers as distributors (264 _2). Isaiah Thomas functions as both a printer (manufacturer) and bookseller (distributor). RDA 2.8.1.1 could be applied, and both the printer and the booksellers treated as publishers recorded in a single 264 _1 field. The cataloger still must transcribe places of distribution that follow the name of the distributor that are grammatically inseparable, “Sold by him in Worcester.” Thomas and Carlisle’s function as booksellers in Walpole, Newhampshire is lost when their segment is broken away from the complete distributor segment: “and by said Thomas and Carlisle, in Walpole, Newhampshire.”17 Their function as booksellers is communicated by the complete distribution segment: “Sold by him in Worcester, by said Thomas and Andrews in Boston, and by said Thomas and Carlisle, in Walpole, Newhampshire”18 The PCC-RDA-BSR and RDA rules do not serve the needs of rare book transcription in these kinds of situations.

260 $b Name of Publisher ; 264 _1 $b Name of Publisher ; 264 _3 $b Name of Manufacturer

The source of information for the publisher name element in the DCRM(B) record was the colophon with the printer’s name (DCRM(B)4A2.1). The printer functioned as the publisher as DCRM(B)4A6 directs catalogers:

Consider the wording, layout, and typography of the publication itself when determining the most appropriate place to transcribe information relating to the publication, distribution, etc., area. Keep in mind that statements relating to printing will sometimes be more appropriately transcribed as elements of publication, distribution, etc., and sometimes as elements of manufacture.19

The PCC-RDA-BSR directs catalogers to RDA 2.8.4 regarding the publisher name element. RDA 2.8.4.2 lists sources of information in preference order. The second preference applied, another source within the manifestation, the colophon. RDA 2.10.4 provides the instructions used to create the manufacturer name element. RDA 2.10.4.2 lists sources of information in preference order for the manufacturer name. The second preference applied, another source within the resource, the colophon. The colophon was the preferred source of information for Stirpium adversaria nova’s publisher name element in the PCC-RDA-BSR and the manufacturer name element in the RDA record.

The next step in creating Stirpium adversaria nova’s three records was transcribing the name elements. The publisher name element in the DCRM(B) record was recorded first. Publisher name appears in the colophon in the phrase, “excudebat prelum Thomæ Purfœtij, ad Lucretię symbolum” (see figure 2). DCRM(B)4C1 instructs catalogers:

Transcribe the names of printers and other manufacturers only if appropriate according to the instructions in 4A6 (i.e., when the wording, layout, or typography of the publication suggests that the manufacturer is also functioning as the publisher, distributor, etc.).20

DCRM(B)4C2 directs catalogers to: “Transcribe the name of the publisher, together with any associated words or phrases, as it appears in the publication.”21 The complete phrase that names Thomas Purfoot as the printer at the sign of Lucretia was recorded in the publisher name element. There were five transcription issues to be addressed for the publisher name element. The first two involved ligatures, “æ” in “Thomae” and “œ” in “Purfoetij.” DCRM(B)0G1.1, directs catalogers to transcribe the component letters of a ligature separately. The third transcription issue was “Thomae” divided between two lines. It was transcribed as a single word (DCRM(B)0G3.6). The fourth transcription issue was the “j” at the end of “Purfœtij” that is proceeded by an “i.” DCRM(B)G4.1 instructs: “j used in the medial or final position only after a preceding i (more typical on the European continent), signifying vocalic use; e.g., commentarij (modern form: commentarii).”22 The “j” was transcribed as it appears in “Purfœtij.” The last transcription issue, the “ę” contraction in “Lucretię,” was transcribed as “[ae]” as directed in the table of early contractions provided in DCRM(B)G3 (see appendix A). The completed publisher name element was recorded as “excudebat prelum Thomae Purfoetij, ad Lucreti[ae] symbolum” in the 260 $b in the DCRM(B) record. Two 500 general notes were created for the DCRM(B) record. The first recorded “Printer’s name from colophon.” The second recorded the complete colophon in normalized form, “Londini, 1571, Calendis Ianuarijs, excudebat prelum Thomae Purfoetij, ad Lucreti[ae] symbolum.” DCRM(B)7B8 directs catalogers: “Make a note on publication details that are not included in the publication, distribution, etc., area if they are considered important.”23

The publisher name element for Stirpium adversaria nova’s PCC-RDA-BSR record was developed next. RDA 2.8.1.4, which guides the transcription of the place of publisher, also directs the publisher name element transcription: “Transcribe a place of publication and a publisher’s name as they appear on the source of information (see 1.7 RDA).”24 The transcription of the manufacturer name in the RDA record was instructed by the same rule used for the place of manufacture. RDA 2.10.1.4 states: “Transcribe a place of manufacture and a manufacturer’s name as they appear on the source of information (see 1.7 RDA).”25 The publisher name element and the manufacturer name element in Stirpium adversaria nova’s PCC-RDA-BSR and RDA records were recorded in the same form. The RDA 1.7.1 alternative to use DCRM(B) as the chosen published style manual facilitated the transcription of the “æ” and “œ” ligatures in “Thomæ Purfœtij,” the letterform “ij” in “Purfœtij,” and the contraction “ę” in “Lucretię” in the publisher name and manufacturer name elements. The PCC-RDA-BSR publisher name was recorded in a 264 _1 $b element and the manufacturer name was recorded in a 264 _3 $b element. The RDA 1.7.1 alternative ensured that the name elements in Stirpium adversaria nova’s three records were recorded in the same form, “Excudebat prelum Thomae Purfoetij, ad Lucreti[ae] symbolum.” (See table 2 for an illustration.)

Although it did not apply to the transcription of Stirpium adversaria nova’s publisher name element, the PCC-RDA-BSR contains a rare materials provision:

Rare materials: Generally transcribe all publisher’s names (see DCRM(B,C,G,M) 4C6). If a publisher’s name is known to be fictitious or incorrect, supply a correction in square brackets (see DCRM(B,C,G,M) 4C5).26

The first part of the provision supersedes the RDA core requirement dictating that only one publisher name is recorded if multiple publisher names appear on the preferred source of information. The second part of the provision negates RDA 1.7.9, the rule directing catalogers to record corrections in a 500 note, rather than enclosing the correction in square brackets following the inaccuracy. DCRM(B)4C5 instructs:

If the publisher, distributor, etc., statement is known to be fictitious or incorrect, transcribe it nonetheless and make an explanatory note. If the actual details are known, or can be reasonably surmised, supply a correction in square brackets and give the basis for the correction in the note.27

260 $c Date of publication ; 264 _1 $c Date of publication ; 264 _3 $c Date of manufacture

The sources of information for the date elements were identified first, beginning with the source of information for the date of publication element in the DCRM(B) record. The date of publication for the DCRM(B) record was taken from the title page, the same source as the place of publication (DCRM(B)4A2.1). The PCC-RDA-BSR directs catalogers to RDA 2.8.6 where RDA 2.8.6.2 provides a list in preference order for the sources of information for the date of publication. The first preference is the same source as the title proper. The title page was the source of information for the title proper, and the date of publication in the PCC-RDA-BSR was taken from the title page. RDA 2.10.6.2 provides a list of sources in preference order for the date of manufacture element. The first preference applied the same source as the title proper. The source of information for the date of manufacture element for the RDA record was the title page. The sources of information for the date elements in Stirpium adversaria nova’s three records was the title page.

The transcription of the dates of publication and date of manufacture elements in Stirpium adversaria nova’s records were developed after the sources of information for the elements were identified. DCRM(B)4D1.2 directs catalogers: “Transcribe dates as they appear in the publication, including the day and month, if present.”28 The date on the title page, 1570, was recorded in the 260 $c element. The later date of publication appearing in the colophon, 1571, was supplied in square brackets following the title page date: “1570 [i.e., 1571].” DCRM(B)4D2.4 instructs catalogers: “If the date of publication, distribution, etc., is known to be fictitious or incorrect, transcribe it as it appears and supply the actual date in square brackets.”29 A 500 field general note was added to the DCRM(B) to indicate that the printing date came from the colophon. DCRM(B) instructs catalogers that the source of publication date is recorded in a note when the source is not the title page.

The date of publication element for Stirpium adversaria nova’s PCC-RDA-BSR was created after the date of publication element was recorded in the DCRM(B) record. The PCC-RDA-BSR includes a rare materials provision for the date of publication:

Rare materials: Transcribe date(s) found in the resource (see DCRM(B,C,G,M)4D1). If a date of publication is known to be fictitious or incorrect, supply the correct year in square brackets (see DCRM(B,C,G,M)4D2.4).30

The PCC-RDA-BSR directs catalogers to RDA 2.8.6 for instructions regarding date of publication. RDA 2.8.6.3 states: “Record a date of publication by applying the basic instructions at 2.8.1 RDA.”31 RDA 2.8.1, the Basic Instructions on Recording Publication Statement, contains RDA 2.8.1.4: “Record a date of publication as it appears on the source of information.”32 The date of publication was recorded as “1570 [i.e., 1571]” in the 264 _1 $b element. The rare materials provision was applied: “If a date of publication is known to be fictitious or incorrect, supply the correct year in square brackets (see DCRM(B,C,G,M)4D2.4).”33 “Ianuarijs” was transcribed as “I” (DCRM(B)G4.1) following the RDA 1.7.1 alternative to use DCRM(B) as the published style manual. The date of publication elements in Stirpium adversaria nova’s PCC-RDA-BSR and DCRM(B) records were recorded in the same form.

The date of manufacture element in Stirpium adversaria nova’s RDA record was created after the date element in the PCC-RDA-BSR was recorded. RDA 2.10.6 provides instructions for the date of manufacture. RDA 2.10.6.3 directs catalogers: “Record a date of manufacture by applying the basic instructions at 2.10.1 RDA.”34 RDA 2.10.1 contains RDA 2.10.1.4: “Record a date of manufacture as it appears on the source of information.”35 The later date of manufacture in the colophon was indicated in the 500 general note recording the complete colophon. RDA does not allow recording of corrections in square brackets directly following an inaccuracy. According to RDA 1.7.9., an inaccuracy may be corrected in a note if considered important for access. A 500 general note was created to record a note with the complete colophon in normalized form. The title page date, 1570, was recorded in the 264 _3 $c element. Table 3 summarizes the rules used to record the date of publication elements and the date of manufacture element in Stirpium adversaria nova’s three records.

300 $a Statement of Extent

The Dittrick Medical History Center copy of Stirpium adversaria nova is imperfect. It is missing the [superscript pi]A, [superscript pi]B and chil leaves. DCRMB(0B2.2) instructs catalogers to base the description of an imperfect copy on a description of a perfect copy if one is available. The description of a perfect copy of Stirpium adversaria nova was taken from The Cleveland Herbal, Botanical, and Horticultural Collections: A Descriptive Bibliography of Pre-1830 Works from the Libraries of the Holden Arboretum, the Cleveland Medical Library Association, and the Garden Center of Greater Cleveland compiled by Stanley H. Johnston. DCRM(B)0B2.2 then further directs catalogers to DCRM(B)7B14.1, which instructs them to make a reference to the description. The PCC-RDA-BSR has a rare materials provision for RDA 3.4 Extent. Catalogers are instructed to “always record extent, even though RDA only considers extent core if the resource is complete or the total extent known.” The total extent was taken from the Johnston bibliography for PCC-RDA-BSR record. RDA does not specifically address describing statement of extent for imperfect copies. RDA 3.4.5.6 addresses incomplete volumes but only if the last part is missing. RDA 3.4.1.2 instructs, “Use evidence presented by the manifestation itself (or on any accompanying material or container) as the basis for recording an extent of the manifestation. Take additional evidence from any source.” The extent element for the RDA record was included because the total extent information could be taken from Johnston bibliography.

The statement of extent is another area that is not well served by RDA transcription rules. Statements of extent for some rare books are complex and difficult to record. For example, a rare book may contain many sequences of leaves and pages that are both numbered and unnumbered. In general, RDA does not allow abbreviations so that “p.” cannot be used to record the number of pages in sequences that fall between pages of leaves, which lengthens a statement of extent (RDA appendix B7). Records for rare books with sequences of unnumbered pages or unnumbered leaves can produce cumbersome statements of extent. RDA does not permit catalogers to enclose the number of unnumbered pages or unnumbered leaves in square brackets in the statement of extent. These statements are recorded with the number of unnumbered pages or unnumbered leaves followed by “unnumbered pages” or “unnumbered leaves” (RDA 3.4.5.3.1). Although the statements of extent recorded in Stirpium adversaria nova’s records were not as complicated as some rare books, they demonstrate inherent problems with recording statements of extent following RDA rules.

The comparison of the statements of extent elements developed in Stirpium adversaria nova’s three records began with the 300 $a element for the DCRM(B) record. DCRM(B)5B1.1 instructs: “The statement of extent should account for every leaf in the volume as issued by the publisher, including leaves of text, leaves of plates, and blank leaves. It should not include leaves added as part of the binding or the binding itself.”36 DCRM(B)5B3.1 further specifies:

If unnumbered pages or leaves (printed or blank) are not included in a sequence of pagination or foliation, count them according to the terms used to describe the rest of the publication or the part of the publication with which they are associated.37

The title page of Stirpium adversaria nova is engraved. DCRM(B)5B9.4 specifically addresses the treatment of engraved title pages in the statement of extent:

Count title pages (and added title pages) as leaves or pages of plates if they are entirely or chiefly non-letterpress (e.g., engraved or lithographed) and not integral to any letterpress gatherings. Make a note to indicate any title page counted as a plate.

The statement of extent developed for Stirpium adversaria nova’s DCRM(B) record was recorded in the form: “[18], 455, [3] p., [l] leaf of plates.” A 500 field general note, “Engraved title page” was also created for this record.

The statement of extent element for Stirpium adversaria nova’s PCC-RDA-BSR is discussed next. The instructions for extent in the PCC-RDA-BSR contain the provision: “Rare materials: Apply Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (DCRM) conventions when recording extent; however, do not use abbreviations.”38 This provision allows DCRM(B)5B1.1 and DCRM(B)5B3.1 to be applied when recording the statement of extent for records created according to the PCC-RDA-BSR. The 300 $a element developed for Stirpium adversaria nova’s record was recorded in the form: “[18], 455, [3] pages, [1] leaf of plates.” The only difference between the DCRM(B) record’s statement of extent and that in the PCC-RDA-BSR was that “pages” was recorded in the PCC-RDA-BSR element instead of “p.” The 500 field general note recording “Engraved title page” was created according to RDA 3.21.2.11, which allows catalogers to record other details of extent.

Recording the statement of extent in the RDA record was more complicated than recording it in the other two records. Requirements for recording unnumbered pages or unnumbered leaves was the first issue addressed. DCRM(B)5B3.1 instructs catalogers that every leaf must be accounted for in a volume. RDA 3.4.5.3.1 instructs catalogers that unnumbered sequences of pages are disregarded unless they form a substantial part of the resource or are referred to in a note. The first unnumbered sequence in Stiprium adversaria nova’s text is substantial because it contains a dedication to Queen Elizabeth and an index to the book’s contents. However, RDA 3.4.5.3.1 contains an exception for rare books when the unnumbered sequences do not form a substantial part of the volume: “Early printed resources. For early printed resources, record unnumbered sequences of pages, leaves, or columns.”39 Although the issue of inclusiveness is solved by this early printed resources exception, RDA does not address the lengthy extent statements resulting from recording unnumbered pages or unnumbered leaves. The statement of extent element developed for the RDA record was recorded as “20 unnumbered pages, 455 pages, 3 unnumbered pages.” Table 4 summarizes the three different possible statement of extent elements recorded for Stirpium adversaria nova and the rules used to construct them.

It is informative to highlight another RDA rule that does not adequately address rare book extent statements, although it did not affect Stirpium adversaria nova’s RDA record. There are often errors in the pagination of rare books and a number that does not accurately represent the extent of the item is used to record the last numbered page. DCRM(B)5B7.2 directs catalogers:

If the number of the last numbered page, leaf, or column of a sequence does not indicate the correct number of pages, etc., either record the sequences exactly to indicate the source of the error or record the number as given in the publication and supply a correction in square brackets. Provide an explanatory note if considered important.

xiv, 823 [i.e., 328] p.

Optional note: Page 328 wrongly numbered 823.40

RDA 3.4.5.5 addresses misleading numbering:

In some cases, the numbering on the last page, leaf, or column of a sequence does not represent the total number in that sequence. When this occurs, do not correct it unless it gives a completely false impression of the extent of the manifestation (e.g., when only alternate pages are numbered or when the number on the last page, leaf, or column of the sequence is misprinted).

When correcting misleading numbering, record the numbering as it appears on the last page or leaf followed by that is and the correct number.41

The extent statement for a rare book with several sequences of unnumbered pages and unnumbered leaves ending with an incorrectly numbered page or leaf would be cumbersome to record. The extent statement for a rare book consisting of separate parts issued together with separate paginations of numbered and numbered pages and leaves could potentially produce unwieldy 300 $a elements in bibliographic records.

300 $b Illustrative Matter

The Dittrick Medical History Museum’s copy of Stirpium adversaria nova is illustrated with 271 woodcuts printed throughout the text.42 DCRM(B)5C1.1 directs catalogers: “To indicate the presence of illustration, use the abbreviation ‘ill.’ after the statement of extent.”43 DCRM(B)5C1.5 adds: “Optionally, add the graphic process or technique in parentheses, preferably using a term found in a standard vocabulary. Give more detailed descriptions of the illustrations in a note, if considered important.”44 DCRM(B)5C1.5 includes a link to the Getty Art & Architecture Thesarus (AAT). The 300 $b element for the DCRM(B) record was recorded as “ill. (woodcuts).”

The PCC-RDA-BSR does not include the 300 $b illustrative matter element. The decision was made to include the element in Stirpium aadversaria nova PCC-RDA-BSR record based on statements contained in the introduction to the standard:

The BSR establishes a baseline set of elements that emphasize access points over descriptive data. The standard seeks to ensure inclusion of the essential data elements necessary to meet user needs. . . . The standard also does not preclude the use of any data in bibliographic description representing more extensive cataloging treatment.45

The illustrative matter was recorded in the 300 $b element in Stirpium adversaria nova’s PCC-RDA-BSR as RDA 7.15.1.3 instructs: “Record the illustrative content if considered important for identification or selection. Use one or more appropriate terms from the following list. Record the type of illustrative content in place of or in addition to the general term illustration.”46

Since the list RDA provides does not include graphic processes such as woodcut or engraving, the 300 $b element in Stirpium adversaria nova’s PCC-RDA-BSR only recorded “illustrations.” The abbreviation “ill.” was not recorded. The same 300 $b element with “illustrations” was recorded in the RDA record. RDA 7.15.1.3 directs catalogers: “Record an illustrative content if considered important for identification or selection.”47 Table 5 summarizes the rules used to form the 300 $b element in Stirpium adversaria nova’s three records.

DCRM(B) provides catalogers with more detailed instructions for recording illustrative content in rare book records. DCRM(B)5C1.3 states: “Do not regard ornaments (e.g., head-pieces, vignettes, tail-pieces, printers’ devices), pictorial covers, or pictorial dust jackets as illustrations. If considered important, these may be mentioned in a note (see 7B10).”48 DCRM(B)5C1.4 provides more specific instructions: “Optionally, treat significant title-page illustrations as illustrations rather than ornaments. Make a note to indicate any title-page illustration so treated, if considered important (see 7B10).”49 It is important that catalogers record the presence of hand coloring in a rare book. DCRM(B)5C3.2 clarifies how to record hand-coloring and publisher-issued hand coloring:

Do not describe hand-colored illustrations as “col.” unless there is evidence that the publication was issued with the hand coloring. In case of doubt, consider any machine-press publication with hand coloring to have been issued that way by the publisher. Always mention publisher-issued hand coloring in a note (7B10.3); make a local note on the presence of other hand coloring, if considered important (see 7B19.1.3).50

The PCC-RDA-BSR and RDA rules lack the detailed instructions that DCRM(B) provides rare book catalogers for recording illustrative matter.

300 $c Dimensions

The dimensions element in the DCRM(B) record was recorded first. DCRM(B)5D.1.1 states:

Give the height of a publication (based on the copy in hand) in centimeters, rounding up a fraction of a centimeter up to the next full centimeter. If a publication measures less than ten centimeters, give the height in millimeters. If more than one copy of the publication is held, and the heights of the different copies vary, record the height of the tallest copy and give the height of the other copies in a local note.51

The height of Stirpium adversaria nova is 31.5 cm. The height was rounded up and recorded in the DCRM(B) dimensions element as “32 cm.”

The PCC-RDA-BSR contains a rare materials provision for dimensions: “PCC core for . . . rare materials (for rare graphic materials, always specify what was measured.”52 This provision supersedes RDA rules that do not identify dimensions as a core element. RDA 3.5.1.3 directs catalogers: “Unless instructed otherwise, record dimensions in centimetres to the next whole centimetres up and use the metric symbol cm (e.g., if the height measures 17.2 centimetres, record 18 cm).”53 RDA 3.5.1.4.14 instructs: “Record the height of the volume. If the volume measures less than 10 centimetres, record the height in millimetres and use the metric symbol mm.”54 Stirpium adversaria nova’s height was rounded up and recorded as “32 cm” without a period in the PCC-RDA-BSR record. The dimensions element was included in Stirpium adversaria nova’s RDA record although it is not a core element. It was recorded according to RDA 3.5.1.3, the same rule used to record the dimensions element in the PCC-RDA-BSR record. Stirpium adversaria nova’s height was rounded up and recorded as thirty-two centimeters in the 300 $c element in all three records. The DCRM(B) record recorded the centimeters as an abbreviation, “cm.” The PCC-RDA-BSR and RDA records recorded the centimeters as “cm,” a metric symbol.

The dimensions element can also include the bibliographical format of the rare book. DCRM(B)5D1.3 directs:

For hand-press publications, add the bibliographical format of the publication in parentheses following the size statement whenever the format can be determined. Optionally, give the format also for machine-press publications. Give the format in abbreviated form (fol., 4to, 8vo, 12mo, etc.). Use ‘full-sheet’ for publications made up of unfolded sheets.55

The dimensions element in Stirpium adversaria nova’s DCRM(B) record was recorded as “32 cm. (fol.)” indicating that the rare book is a folio. The PCC-RDA-BSR contains a rare materials provision for bibliographical format: “Rare books, rare music, rare atlases: PCC recommends this element when it is applicable and can de be determined.”56 The dimensions element in Stirpium adversaria nova’s PCC-RDA-BSR record format was recorded as “32 cm (folio).” The bibliographical format was also included in Stirpium adversaria nova’s RDA record. RDA 3.12.1.3 directs catalogers: “Record the book format of an early printed book using an appropriate term from the list below.”57 The RDA record recorded the bibliographical format as “32 cm (folio).” Stirpium adversaria nova’s bibliographical format was recorded in all three records. The DCRM(B) record used an abbreviation for folio and recorded “(fol.)” in the dimensions element. The PCC-RDA-BSR and RDA records did not abbreviate folio and recorded “folio” in the dimensions element. Table 5 summarizes the rules used to form the 300 $c dimensions element.

500 General Note: Signatures

After the elements in the physical description area in Stirpium adversaria nova’s three records were created, a 500 field general note was created that was not associated with the statements of publication or statement of manufacture recorded in the 260 and 264 fields. Rare book records often contain a 500 field general note that records the signatures of the volume. A 500 field general note was constructed to record the signatures of Stirpium adversaria nova in the DCRM(B) record. DCRM(B)7B9.1 directs catalogers:

Make a note giving details of the signatures of a volume, if considered important. Give these signature details according to the formula in Philip Gaskell’s A New Introduction to Bibliography (see p. 328-332), insofar as typographical facilities permit. Preface this note with the word ‘Signatures’ and a colon.58

The PCC-RDA-BSR lacks instructions for a signatures note. A signatures note was created for the PCC-RDA-BSR based on the guidelines provided in the introduction to the standard. Catalogers may include data in a bibliographic description that represents more extensive cataloging treatment. A signatures note was originally created for Stirpium adversaria nova’s RDA record for this study based on RDA 3.21.2.9, what directed catalogers:

For early printed resources, make notes about details of the extent of the manifestation (e.g., details of pagination, aspects of collation, the layout of sheets) if these details are: not recorded as part of the extent element (see 3.4.5 RDA-3.4.5.1.3 RDA) and considered important for identification or selection.59

This instruction was deleted as a revision to RDA. RDA 3.21.2.11 (other details of extent) replaces it. Catalogers are directed: “Make notes on aspects of collation, if considered important for identification or selection.”60

DCRM(B)7B9 provides catalogers with more comprehensive instructions for creating a signatures note than RDA 3.21.2.11. DCRM(B)7B9.1 directs catalogers to the specific pages in Gaskell’s A New Introduction to Bibliography that explain the formula needed to record the signatures statement. DCRM(B)7B9.1 also provides instructions that explain how to format the note, prefaced with “Signatures” and a colon. Stirpium adversaria nova’s signatures statement includes unsigned leaves that fall outside the signatures sequence. DCRM(B)7B9.3 provides instructions for the special uses of pi and chi:

Indicate unsigned leaves that fall outside the signatures sequence (see Gaskell p. 330) by using the words pi and chi. Do not enclose the words in square brackets. Do not use the Greek characters π and χ, as these will give the impression that the leaves have actually been signed with Greek letters (see 7B9.9). . . . Indicate partial duplications of an alphabet (see Gaskell p. 331) by using superscript pi and superscript chi or, if superscript letters are not available, by substituting ‘[superscript pi]’ and ‘[superscript chi].’61

DCRM(B)7B9.3 refers catalogers to Gaskell’s A New Introduction to Bibliography for more detailed explanation of signatures statements. Stirpium adversaria nova’s signatures note was recorded in the same form in all three records:

500 $a Signatures: [superscript pi]A² [superscript pi]B1 chi1 * * *² *4 A-2P6 2R1

The construction of the signatures note was greatly facilitated by the extensive instructions provided in DCRM(B). The rules used to create the 500 field signatures notes are summarized in table 6.

510 4 Citation Note

Citations notes are also common in rare book records and in the MARC 510 field, Citation/References Note. The citation note points to a published description of the book being cataloged. A published description of the Dittrick Medical History Center’s copy of Stirprum adversaria nova is contained in a comprehensive bibliography compiled by Stanley H. Johnston, The Cleveland herbal, botanical, and horticultural collections: a descriptive bibliography of pre-1830 works from the libraries of the Holden Arboretum, the Cleveland Medical Library Association, and the Garden Center of Greater Cleveland.62 The citation note for Stirpium adversaria nova’s DCRM(B) record was considered first. DCRM(B)7B14.1 directs:

Give references to published descriptions in bibliographies or other authoritative reference sources if these have been used to supply elements of the description. Use the form and punctuation conventions recommended by Standard Citation Forms for Published Bibliographies and Catalogs Used in Rare Book Cataloging. Begin the note with the word ‘References’ and a colon.63

The PCC-RDA-BSR contains a rare materials provision for citation notes under Related Work RDA 25.1: “Rare materials: Citation notes and reference to published descriptions are encouraged. Record in the form prescribed by Standard Citation Forms for Rare Materials Cataloging.”64 DCRM(B) and the PCC-RDA-BSR provided clear instructions for the citation notes recorded in Stirpium adversaria nova’s records. Citation notes were recorded in the PCC-RDA-BSR and DCRM(B) records using the form prescribed by Standard Citation Forms for Rare Materials Cataloging for Johnston’s descriptive bibliography. A citation note was recorded in Stirpium adversaria nova’s RDA record, but the instructions provided are not as clear. RDA 25.1 contains instructions for related works. RDA 25.1.1.1 defines the scope of a related work: “A work associated with a work being described.”65 RDA 25.1.1.3 contains instructions for recording a related work that include examples of structured descriptions of related works. Since a citation note is a structured description of a related work, a 510 note was recorded in the RDA record in the same form recorded in the PCC-RDA-BSR and DCRM(B) records shown below:

510 4 $a References: Johnston, S.H. Cleveland herbal, botanical, and horticultural collections, $c 103.

Table 6 summarizes the rules applied for the construction of the 510 4 field in the bibliographic records for the three standards. The BSC sponsored a proposal for revisions to RDA to accommodate descriptions of referential works such as the Standard Citation Forms recorded in the 510 field. This proposal was rejected.66

590 field Item-Specific Notes

Item-specific, or local notes, recorded in the 590 field are a hallmark of rare book cataloging records. DCRM(B)7B19.1.1 directs catalogers:

Make local notes on any special features or imperfections of the copy being described when they are considered important. Copy-specific information is highly desirable in the context of rare materials cataloging, which puts greater emphasis on materials as artifacts than is usual in general cataloging practice. Local notes can also provide warrant for added entries (e.g. added entries for the names of former owners or binders, for various kinds of provenance evidence, binding characteristics, etc.). Carefully distinguish local notes from other kinds of notes that record information valid for all copies of the bibliographic unit being cataloged.67

DCRM(B)7B19.1.1 provides instructions for recording notes when it cannot be determined if characteristics of a rare book are copy specific:

For many older publications, however, it will not be readily ascertainable whether the characteristics of a single copy are in fact shared by other copies. In case of doubt, consider that the characteristics of the copy in hand are not shared by other copies.68

DCRM(B)7B19.1.4 contains directions for formatting item-specific notes with examples:

Include in local notes one or more of the following identifiers, if considered important: a designation of the holding institution (e.g., a library’s name, acronym, or code), a designation of the item’s physical location (e.g., a shelfmark), or an indication of the item’s copy number (if the institution holds more than one copy). Such identifiers are especially recommended if the bibliographic record is to be contributed to a union catalog or other shared database.

Copy 1: Imperfect: leaves 12 and 13 (b6 and c1) wanting; without the last blank leaf (S8)

Copy 2: Extra-illustrated

Folger copy on vellum; illustrations and part of borders hand colored; with illuminated initials; rubricated in red and blue

LC has no. 20, autographed by author69

The PCC-RDA-BSR does not include instructions for item-specific notes recorded in the 590 field. Item-specific notes were recorded in Stirpium adversaria nova’s PCC-RDA-BSR, based on the introduction to the standard, which states that data can be included in a bibliographic description that represents a more extensive cataloging treatment. Item-specific notes were recorded in the RDA record and PCC-RDA-BSR following RDA 3.22.1.4:

For early printed resources, make a note about special features of the specific item being described (e.g., rubrication, illumination, binding). Also make a note about other item-specific carrier characteristics as instructed at 3.22.1.3 RDA.70

RDA 3.22.1.4 contains examples illustrating notes on bindings, former owner signatures, hand coloring and missing leaves. The examples provided in RDA 3.22.1.3 highlight text pages with wormholes, numbered copies, and errata sheets tipped in.

Although the RDA rules were accompanied by examples of notes relevant to rare book cataloging, DCRM(B) offers more detailed instructions for constructing item specific notes. DCRM(B)7B19.2 contains directions for provenance notes:

Make a local note to describe details of an item’s provenance, if considered important. In less detailed descriptions, it is advisable to summarize provenance information, without providing exact transcriptions or descriptions of the evidence. Include the names of former owners or other individuals of interest and approximate dates, whenever possible.71

DCRM(B) provides more specific directions for bindings notes than RDA. DCRM(B)7B19.3.1 provides instructions for copy-specific bindings and publisher-issued bindings: “Use local notes for descriptions of copy-specific bindings, if considered important; for descriptions of publisher-issued bindings common to all copies of an edition or issue, see 7B10.4-5.”72

Two 590 item-specific notes were recorded in the records for the Dittrick Medical History Center’s copy of Stirpium adversaria nova. DCRM(B) guided the development of these fields because it provides more comprehensive instructions than RDA. The 590 notes were prefaced with the center’s name (DCRM(B)7B19.1.4). The first recorded the rare book’s missing gatherings. The second recorded a description of the binding (DCRM(B)7B19.1.1) and provenance information, the signature of a former owner on the title page (DCRM(B)7B19.1.1). The 590 notes recorded in Stirpium adversaria nova’s three records are listed below:

590 Dittrick Medical History Center copy: Imperfect: lacks gatherings [superscript pi]A [superscript pi]B and chi1.

590 Dittrick Medical History Center copy: Binding is blind-stamped pigskin over wooden boards; five rib spine; clasps with initials “WS”; title page signed by F.L. Albrecht , dr.

These item-specific notes and a summary of the cataloging rules used to construct them are provided in table 7.

590 Field Item-Specific Note: Bound-With

The Dittrick Medical History Center’s copy of Stirpium adversaria nova is bound preceding L’Obel’s Plantarum seu stirpium historia printed at Antwerp by Christopher Plantin in 1576.73 The two works were not issued together. Bound with notes were recorded in 590 notes in Stirpium adversaria nova’s three records beginning with the DCRM(B) record. DCRM(B)7B18.3 directs catalogers: “If the works were bound together subsequent to publication, rather than issued together by the publisher, distributor, etc., make a local note according to the instructions in 7B19.3.4, if considered important.”74 DCRM(B)7B19.3.4 instructs:

Make a local note, if considered important, whenever a publication has been bound with one or more works subsequent to publication. Preface the note with the words “Bound with” followed by a colon. Formulate the remainder of the note according to the instructions in 7B18.75

DCRM(B)7B18.2 contains detailed directions for recording with notes and provides an example. A note can contain four elements. These are a heading, title proper, primary statement of responsibility and publication/distribution element. Instructions for formatting each element are provided. The instructions for the publication area contained in part d of DCRM(B)7B18.2 guided the form of the printing date recorded in Stirpium adversaria nova’s bound-with note: “the publication, distribution, etc., area as found in the record for the work, abridged as necessary, without using the mark of omission.”76 The printing date on the title page of L’Obel’s Plantarum seu stirpium historia appears as “M. D. LXXVI.” The roman numerals were recorded in the 590 note as they would be transcribed in the 260 $c element in a record for Plantarum seu stirpium historia. The date was recorded without internal spaces (DCRM(B)0G4.1) and without periods (DCRM(B)0G3.4). The date in Arabic numerals was supplied in square brackets following the date recorded in roman numerals (DCRM(B)4D2.1). The publisher name was abridged without using the mark of omission. The 590 bound-with note was recorded in the DCRM(B) record in the form:

“Dittrick Medical History Center copy bound with: L’Obel, Matthias de. Plantarum seu stiprium historia. Antuerpiae : Ex officina Christophori Plantini, MDLXXVI [1576].”

The PCC-RDA-BSR contains a rare materials provision for bound-with notes in the instructions for RDA 28.1, related item: “Rare materials: If making separate descriptions for resources bound together after publication, make a reference to the related item in a local “with” note.”77 RDA 1.8.3, numbers expressed as words, includes a rare materials provision directing catalogers to the same DCRM(B) rules used to record roman numeral dates in rare book records DCRM(B)0G. The 590 bound-with note in the PCC-RDA-BSR was recorded in the same form as the note in the DCRM(B) record shown above.

A 590 bound-with note was recorded in the RDA record following RDA 28.1, related item. RDA 28.1.1 contains basic instructions on recording a related item. RDA 28.1.1.3 provides an example of a structured description of a related item that is a bound-with note:

Bound with: Report of the Committee on the District of Columbia in relation to the city of Washington : read in Senate, February 2, 1835. — [Washington] : [publisher not identified], [1835] (City of Washington : Printed at the Globe Office, 1835).78

The form of the RDA bound-with note varies slightly from the form DCRM(B)7B18.2 recommends. The title element and publication area element are separated by dashes. The transcription of the roman numerals in the RDA record were guided by the RDA 1.7.1 alternative to use DCRM(B) as the chosen published style manual with its directions for recording roman numerals in rare book records. The 590 item-specific note was recorded in the RDA record as: “Dittrick Medical History Center copy bound with: L’Obel, Matthias de. Plantarum seu stiprium historia. -- Antuerpiae : Ex officina Christophori Plantini, MDLXXVI [1576].” Although it was included in the RDA record, RDA does not instruct catalogers to include the name of the holding library in item-specific notes (DCRM(B)7B19.1.4). RDA does not provide the same detailed list of instructions for formatting each element in the bound-with note that catalogers can access in DCRM(B)7B18.2. Table 7 summarizes the rules used to develop the 590 bound-with notes for Stirpium adversaria nova’s three records.

655 7 $2 Genre/Form Headings and Controlled Vocabularies

DCRM(B)7B19.1.1 states: “Local notes can also provide warrant for added entries (e.g., added entries for the names of former owners or binders, for various kinds of provenance evidence, binding characteristics, etc.).”79 DCRM(B) Appendix C contains guidelines for core-level rare book records. DCRM(B)C3 lists elements of a core-level bibliographic record for a rare book that includes the 655 field:

Addition of genre/form terms to the DCRM(B) core-level record is encouraged if local policy calls for use of such terms, as appropriate to the piece. Prefer the terminology used in controlled vocabularies issued by the RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee. Terms from other authorized vocabularies (e.g., the Art & Architecture Thesaurus Online) may also be used as appropriate.80

The PCC-RDA-BSR contains a rare books provision under the element Subject and genre/form access: “Adding genre/form terms from one of the Rare Books and Manuscripts Section (RBMS) Controlled Vocabularies is strongly recommended. Assign terms from other thesauri as appropriate.”81 Currently RDA does not specifically address the genre/form element recorded in the 655 field. The “MARC Bibliographic to RDA Mapping” accessible at the Tools menu in the RDA Toolkit does not contain a link to a corresponding section in the RDA rules.82 However, the same 655 fields for genre/form access recorded in Stirpium adversaria nova’s PCC-RDA-BSR and DCRM(B) records were recorded in the RDA record. Two 655 fields were created to record attributes of Stirpium adversaria nova’s binding using the RBMS Controlled Vocabularies: Binding Terms:83

655 7 Pigskin bindings (Binding). $2 rbbin

655 7 Blind tooled bindings (Binding). $2 rbbin

An additional 655 field was created to record the former owner signature on the title page. The term “autographs” was chosen from the RBMS Controlled Vocabularies: Provenance Evidence Terms:84

655 7 Autographs (Provenance). $2 rbprov

The rules and vocabularies used to form the 655 7 fields recorded in Stirpium adversaria nova’s three records are recorded in table 8.

7XX Field Added Entries

Although DCRM(B) is concerned mainly with description, DCRM(B) Appendix C3 contains the 7XX fields in its list of core elements for rare book records:

7XX fields: Added entries: Mandatory if applicable. Use judgement in assessing each item and assign a complement of added entries that covers primary relationships associated with the manifestation of which the item is a part. The inclusion and importance of added entries are intended to reflect individual cataloger’s judgement and/or local institutional policy.85

The PCC-RDA-BSR lacks a rare materials provision for added entries for rare materials. However, RDA 19.2 Creator instructs catalogers: “After satisfying the RDA core requirement, catalogers may provide additional authorized access points for creators according to cataloger’s judgement.”86

RDA 19.3 Other person, family, or corporate body associated with a work includes the note: “After satisfying the RDA core requirement, catalogers may provide additional authorized access points according to cataloger’s judgement.”87 RDA 19.3.1.3 directs catalogers: “Record other persons, families, and corporate bodies associated with the work if considered important for access. Apply the general guidelines at 18.4 RDA.”88 Added entries were created in all three records for the second author, Matthias de L’Obel, the printer and the former owner who signed the title page of the Dittrick Medical History Center’s copy of Stirpium adversaria nova (see table 8).

It is standard practice in rare book cataloging to record relationship designators in 7XX fields. The PCC-RDA-BSR includes a section on relationship designators contained in the instructions for RDA 18.5. Catalogers are directed: “Follow PCC Training Manual for Applying Relationship Designators in Bibliographic Records-1XX/7XX $e $i or $j as appropriate.”89 Appendixes I–L in the RDA Toolkit contain relationship designators for added entries in bibliographic records. The RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee website contains a list of relationship designators for rare books and special collections cataloging.90 Catalogers are directed: “Relationship designators contained in this resource may be used in catalog records created according to any standard, including RDA, that permits use of relationship designators from a source external to the standard.”91

The three added entries were assigned the same relationship designators in the $e subfield in Stirpium adversaria nova’s three records. The relationship designator “author” was recorded in the added entry for Matthias de L’Obel, the second author. RDA I.2.1 contains “author,” but it is not included in the RBMS website relationship designators list. The relationship designators, “printer” and “former owner” are contained in the RBMS website list and RDA Appendix I. RDA I.4.1 contains instructions for relationship designators for manufacturers. RDA I.5.1 instructs catalogers on relationship designators for owners. The added entries recorded in the three records for the Dittrick Medical History Center’s copy of Stirpium adversaria nova are listed below:

700 1 $a L’Obel, Matthias de, $d 1538-1616, $e author.

700 1 $a Purfoot, Thomas $d -1615. $e printer.

700 1 $a Albrecht, F. L., $e autographer, $e former owner.

The rules used to develop the added entries in the three records are summarized in table 8. The three catalog records created for Stirpium adversaria nova following the three different cataloging standards are contained in appendixes B–D.

Conclusion

The Library of Congress’s adoption of RDA in 2013 has significantly impacted rare books cataloging and rare materials cataloging in at least two ways. The RBMS BSC began working to adapt the rare book cataloging standard designed for the Anglo-American cataloging community from the time RDA was in its developmental stages. As work progressed on adapting this standard to DCRM(B), the committee decided a single rare materials cataloging standard applicable to all formats was needed. The new RBMS policy statements slated to become a part of the RDA Toolkit are a radical departure for special materials catalogers used to working with the DCRM manuals. The wealth of supporting documentation and examples contained in these manuals are tailored specifically to the needs of rare materials cataloging. As this study demonstrated, there are description and transcription issues that rare materials catalogers need to address that RDA, a general cataloging standard, does not. They include the transcription of complex publication statements and statements of extent and the need for 510 citation notes to record referential relationships. It is yet to be determined how effectively RDA and the RBMS PS can guide the specialized descriptions of rare materials with artifactual value. In addition to spurring the development of a consolidated rare materials cataloging standard, RDA has played a role in starting discussions regarding the development of an international rare materials cataloging code.92 An indication of this trend is the recent establishment of the RSC Rare Materials Working Group. The group aims to expand the coverage of rare materials in RDA and to refine the detail of the description of rare materials. However, developing an international rare materials cataloging standard will be a challenging process. Some libraries outside the Anglo-Cataloging community follow cataloging standards based on ISBD, which conflicts with RDA. It appears that adopting rare materials cataloging practice to RDA both within and outside the Anglo-American cataloging community will continue to be a challenge for the foreseeable future.