Celine,
Thank you. I think what you said about being to say "that's not a publication statement" is what matters. We've toyed with excluding alphabetical lists (1 and 2), and the ones that look like they might have been effectively company-stamped are good targets (3) although sometimes that is all there is. One option is to have a list of publishers with some basic umpire decisions for the most common, although I fear the list getting longer than 4 or 5 publishers.
The one that is arguably most troublesome is no. 4, mostly for OUP and CUP, where a list of offices which would otherwise be a clear statement of place and which usually starts with Oxford or Cambridge, is then followed by something saying "Published in the USA in New York". I can never establish whether that means that is precisely where the book is published or is just a phrase used to mean that, within the USA, it is published in New York.
A librarian once asked me to write to Macmillan to ask that they make their place of publication clearer in the address they printed (Basingstoke rather than Houndmills) so fewer cataloguers chose the latter. I replied that it was our job to interpret what we're given rather than for them to make it easier for us. I sometimes wonder though.
I agree that there is only so much we can do to keep on top of this anyway, especially when records are increasingly entering the system by more direct routes. Something simple to prevent this being a new issue with each record we come across would be good though.
Thanks,
Tom
---
Thomas Meehan
Head of Current Cataloguing
Library Services
University College London
Gower Street
London WC1E 6BT
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: C.J. Carty [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of C.J. Carty
Sent: 22 August 2012 09:39
To: Meehan, Thomas
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Choosing which publishers to record
Dear Tom,
We've always exercised discretion with these t.p. displays which are basically a list of places (often alphabetical) in which the publisher has offices. We would not consider that to be a "publication statement" and so in the first two examples you give, we'd go with t.p. verso for place of publication as we'd consider that the actual publication statement.
There's a fair bit of grey area here as your 3rd and 4th examples show and often it depends on layout/typography on t.p. Definite difference in practice in what I see from other libraries so whatever you decide internally, short of editing every single record you will have to accept some deviations from that in copy cataloguing/imported records.
Interestingly with RDA, I'm not sure the situation changes, as I'd still not consider that list of places on t.p. as a publication statement but I'm not sure how I'd deal with it.
Celine
On Aug 22 2012, Meehan, Thomas wrote:
>Dear all,
>
> We are looking to deal with inconsistencies and ambiguities in how to
> record places of publication in the 260. The problem is basically in
> how far to interpret the information given on the item, especially
> where a list of places of publication on the chief source seems to be
> essentially part of a standard logo or stamp, places are merely listed
> in alphabetical order, or countries are given prominence over cities.
> Some more precise (although basically made-up) examples in lieu of
> fuller
> explanations:
>
>
> 1. Title page has "Australia, Brazil, United Kingdom, Zaire". Title
> page verso has "Colchester".
>
> 2. Title page has "Beijing, New York, Oxford, Yalta". Title page verso
> has "Oxford".
>
> 3. Title page has "Oxford". Title page verso has "Published in
> Abingdon, Oxford".
>
> 4. Title page verso has "Cambridge, New York, Melbourne. Published in
> the USA by CUP, New York".
>
> In all these examples, the first named place would strictly be correct
> following AACR2 or RDA, i.e. Australia, Beijing, Oxford, and Cambridge.
> Arguably, none of these are the places of publication, which should be
> Colchester, Oxford, Abingdon, and New York.
>
> Do other libraries have ways/policies for resolving these tensions in
> a methodical/logical manner? Mechanically following the rules and
> recording basically incorrect information seems wrong, as does
> applying too many layers of unorthodox interpretation or policy.
> Relying on judgement is attractive but in cases like this means
> cataloguers having different
> judgements: I've changed my own mind about what is the best course. If
> there is a good common sense consensus or policy (or obvious standard
> I've missed) that others are following, I would prefer to follow suit.
>
> In many ways this doesn't matter: it affects the multinational
> publishers more than any others. RDA will I think also take much of
> the choice out although will still I think leave the tension between
> the chief source saying nonsense and another source having correct
> information. Obviously it would be best to have a solution or policy
> which continues to make sense with RDA.
>
>Lastly, thank you all again for your help some while back with the 504!
>
>Thanks,
>
>Tom
>
>---
>
>Thomas Meehan
>Head of Current Cataloguing
>Library Services
>University College London
>Gower Street
>London WC1E 6BT
>
>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>
--
Céline Carty
English Cataloguing
Cambridge University Library
Cambridge CB3 9DR
|