Dear Tom and all,
 
I've just been trying to devise instructions for Oxford cataloguers to
use in this situation for RDA.  I'm reluctant to ignore the t.p. places,
even if just a standard alphabetical list, because t.p. verso/colophon
information varies so much and the range of grey situations is therefore
too wide to achieve a consensus.  If we don't all routinely give the
first t.p. place it will be difficult to tell whether records which
specify different places are really for the same resource.  
 
For the moment, to satisfy myself, I have written that we should enter a
second place of publication if there is a statement which strongly
suggests that the real work was done in a different place, but I really
can't justify this from RDA and will probably wimp out unless I get the
impression that other libraries might adopt the same practice.
 
For the big publishers I would really prefer to be able to enter a value
such as 'International' or 'Various', since selecting only one place
from their list will always be a misrepresentation.  It would also
sometimes be useful to enter 'Online' for bodies which issue e-resources
and have no real location.  This includes a lot of clubs and societies
whose output may be handled by a secretary in Dorking in one year and a
secretary in Inverness the following year.
 
Best wishes,
Bernadette
 
_______________________________________
 
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> 
01865 2-77134

Catalogue Support Services
The Bodleian Libraries, 
Osney One Building,
Osney Mead,
Oxford
OX2 0EW.
 

________________________________

From: Bibliographic standards in UK libraries on behalf of Meehan,
Thomas
Sent: Wed 22/08/2012 10:41
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Choosing which publishers to record



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