Summary of Virtual Meeting, August 11, 2011

Present: Erin Blake, Marcy Flynn, Mary Mundy, Lenore Rouse, Helena Zinkham

Analytics

Discussed examples Lenore provided (including minor corrections to examples to match current DCRM(G) rules)

• [Birth of Jesus Christ]: woodcut in letterpress book
• [Putto holding wilted flower and torch]: engraving in letterpress book, with visible plate mark
• Nvremberga: woodcut spanning two pages of a book 
• Fertilization of Egypt: engraving with named artist and engraver, and with publication statement (same year but different wording from publication statement of book)

Agreed that need to have the note "Illustration in...." or equivalent plus the citation, per 7B8.2,  even though the 773 also gives the citation.

• Question from EB while writing up notes: should we revisit this now that we know 773$i can be used to provide the introductory phrase? We could add something to 7B8.2 pointing people to the appendix for further instructions on creating a full MARC analytic (i.e. providing the information is mandatory, but where you put it isn't mandated; for example, you could put the full citation in the 500 and use the 773 just to generate a link within your OPAC because MARC21 says "only those data elements required to assist in the identification of the host item need to be included in the field, such as links to the bibliographic record describing the item and/or descriptive data that identify the host item")

Discussed the problem that the 773 does not have $5, which would allow you to indicate that the 773 is local information, e.g. the title of an extra-illustrated book or scrapbook that contains an illustration removed from a different published book.

• could use "$i - Relationship information" to signal to users that the 773 applies only to a particular instance of a published illustration. Example added by EB while writing up notes:
• 8_ $i Added to a Folger Shakespeare Library extra-illustrated copy of: $a Fitzgerald, Percy Hetherington, 1834-1925. $t Life of David Garrick, $d London : Tinsley Brothers, 1868. $g after p. 203 $o PN2598.G3 F5 Ex. Ill. copy 4

Discussed (again) bracketing the imprint: agreed it should be bracketed because it isn't specific to the illustration (unlike the title in a list of plates of a printed book, which would be unbracketed).

Vocabulary: it's okay to say "on leaf 15.2 x 11.5 cm" because the required "on sheet" phrase is only for "single prints and drawings" and "unmounted photographic prints" not prints in books

Date of manufacture

• when the publication statement on a print gives a different date from the publication date on the t.p. in an analytic, need to give both dates in the 260, with the date on the t.p. treated as "date of manufacture"
• need to move 4D3. (Restrikes, later printings of photographs, etc.) into 4G (Date of manufacture...if it has not been treated as the date of publication, distribution, production, etc.)
• e.g. instead of , 1746 [but not printed before 1804] it would be , 1746 ([but not printed before 1804])
• but need to make some kind of cross-reference in 4D so that people know to look to 4G

Measurements

Need to find a place in Area 5 for the main principles:

• always state what you measure
• for material that exists in multiples, always include the measurement of something that won't vary from copy to copy (i.e. need to change 5D3.1.2 so that if the platemark of an engraving is indistinguishable, you measure the image)

Discussed whether always measuring the sheet for single prints should remain mandatory, even though another measurement such as plate mark or image area is also required. Question from EB while writing up notes: did we agree it should be? Or did we get distracted and start talking about something else?

Titles from lists of plates: bracket or not?

Discussed whether "provided by the creator or creating body" applies to lists of plates in published materials, since the creator of the image didn't create the list.

• titles for news photographs don't come from the photographer, and they're not bracketed
• e.g. of 18th-century magazine illustration with title "Pennsylvania hospital" (EB: or something like that) on the item and title "South east view of the hospital in Pennsylvania" (EB: or something like that) on the title page: probably neither was provided by the artist/printmaker; agreed the title on the print would be the 245 and the title on the tp would be a 246
• conclusion: the title in a list of plates is specific to the image, so shouldn't be bracketed (and its source will always be given, since a note on the source of title is mandatory) whereas imprint on a title page applies to the larger thing, so should be bracketed. Question from EB while writing up notes: this needs to be explained somewhere in Area 4, but how? By example?
• want to clarify that "list of plates" in the example of chief source applies to lists contemporary to the material, not lists made by a later scrapbooker or extra-illustrator (which would be covered by the Collection Level appendix). Question from EB via Marcy: would "list of plates in published works" do it? Or is that overkill?

For next time

• RDA options (and how they and AACR2 deviations are explained in the introduction): there are times we're deviating to accommodate traditions in describing these materials, to harmonize with other standards (i.e., even though this is bibliographic description, not archival description or museum description, the user community has certain needs and expectations)
• What do we need in "minimal level" instructions? would it still be encoded dcrmg, or follow B's example of providing guidance on collection-level records but not considering them dcrmb?