![[AIB]](/aib/wi/aiba10.gif)
|
AIB. Gruppo di studio sulla catalogazione |
Comments
Bibliografic references
ISBD edited in italian
July, 15, 2000
The study on FRBR offers an ample and in-depth analysis, which constitutes a basis for organizing the bibliographic description at the manifestation level, clearly demonstrating the relationships with informations pertaining the work level and the expression level.
The proposed revision of ISBD(M) consists only in some small changes, to adequate the minimal description requirements (the mandatories data) to FRBR requirements at the basic level for national bibliographic records.
There's no doubt that FRBR proposals should require more time to define a new descriptive standard, in a more detailed format. If and when such a work of definition would be carried on, AIB Cataloguing Group would be willing to co-operate.
About proposed changes, the comments offered by AIB Cataloguing Group are:
1.3 e 6.2. The Group don't agree. The role of each one of parallel titles is equal (the title proper being primus inter pares): it seems adequate that the transcription of all of them remains mandatory, and it would be increasingly so - as nowadays each title constitute an access point in catalagoues and bibliographic databases.
Furthermore, the Group remarks that in notes 1 and 2 the usage of the term item strikingly contradicts the usage of same term in FRBR Report, where is preferred the term manifestation. Substitute item with publication in notes 1 and 2.
1.4, 1.5, 2.3, 2.5. The Group agrees, even if such changes lead to a very minimal level description standard.
5.2. The Group agrees.
5.3. The Group don't agree. In description at the manifestation level - where it deals with the material evidence of the document - recording of physical dimensions is necessary.
6.4. The Group agrees. In effect, it is not a real change on 1987 version of ISBD (M) 6.4.1, as 'the first statement of responsibility is mandatory' only 'when the title proper of the serie or sub-series is a generic term'.
8.3. The Group agrees.
7.1.2. The affirmation in note 5 is obvious: what is clearly stated, or recorded in previous areas, has not to be repeated in the note area. About the note on language, the Group observes the inconsistence - maybe a compensation - of defining optional the transcription of parallel titles (change proposed in 1.3) and in the same time necessary a note on language, which in many cases would be easily inferred from those parallel titles. The Group proposes that parallel titles should be recorded in area 1, as noted above, and the note on language included only when language(s) of the title(s) differs from language(s) of the document.
7.2. The Group agrees on note 6, but suggests that it would be included (as well as the note 5) in the text of the standard after the existing sentence, not as a footnote related to the title, as appears in the proposed changes list.
AIB Group suggests also that some of major inconsistencies between ISBD(M) and FRBR analysis should be harmonized.
For example, edition area results inadequate to represent the relationships of manifestation with the expression and the work embodied in it because the concept of edition remains somewhat ambiguous (an edition statement can refer to a different manifestation of the same expression, as well as a manifestation of a different expression of the same work). Also, in area 2 only few informations related to manifestations of same work are recorded, when other elements equally related to the manifestation level are dismembered in areas 1, 6, and 7.
In addition to the comments requested, the AIB Group reports some observations and reflections about ISBD(M) expressed by Italian librarians in thirteen years of diffuse usage of standard in catalogues and bibliographies.
Information sources
Revelli 2000 proposes to replace the definition of Preliminaries (0.2) with 'Complementaries parts of title-page - including cover, spine, dust-jacket, colophon", generally tending to a more flexible definition of information sources. About it, Pino Buizza (AIB Cataloguing Group) prefers a definition of preliminaries including cover and spine, but excluding the dust-jacket, as physically separated from the document, and the colophon, which is not - literally speaking - in a preliminary position. In the case, the definition of information sources could be: 'Title-page, preliminaries and colophon'.
Revelli 2000 proposes also to cancel from the definition of Title-page (0.2) the phrase 'presenting the fullest information'. In some cases important informations may be found in other parts than the title-page, but it don't abolish the primacy of title-page in representing the document identity.
Publication, distribution, etc., area
Place of publication and/or distribution - Giulia Visintin (AIB Cataloguing Group) suggests that the statement of the 'locality associated on the prescribed source of information with the name of the publisher' (4.1.1) could be seen in some case as a superfluous information, if simply derived from the address of the publisher (furthermore, such a mechanical derivation is now possible from data coded in ISBN). It would be preferable to record the 'place from which the publication was issued', that can be different from the publisher's permanent address. In alternative, Buizza proposes to prospect such case as an exception only, when a different place of publication is formally in evidence in a prescribed source.
Revelli 2000 suggests to include among examples in 4.1.8 a name of place with preposition (A Milano) and a name of place in a declined form without preposition (Romae).
Publication area and edition area - The problems posed by those two areas are treated by many Italian librarians (Dini 1987, Grimaldi 1987, Guerrini 1987, Tirelli 1989), all noting the difficulties in relating traditional cataloguing concepts - now augmented and better defined in FRBR - with data offered by the documents evidence. Petrucciani 1991 had emphasized the distinctive role of any edition statement one can find in the document, and the importance of recording it. Revelli 2000 observes that 'as a rule, publication date must correspond to informations in area 2. If one prefers to exclude from description the 'edition' statement given in many bestsellers instead of a more appropriate reprint statement, in area 4 would be recorded the date of first edition, giving in a note the date of reprint. It could be somewhat easier to do like in ISBD(PM), giving the reprint date in brackets, just after the proper publication date in area 4'.
Series area
Italian librarians was looking in a very critical way at the area 6 prescriptions, noting the leaning to subordinate the descriptive aims to a textual correspondence with area 1 of ISBD(S) and an attention to the role of distinctive title inappropriately recognized in area 6 title informations. We propose to come back to the descriptive criteria of 1st standard ed. rev., 1978.
Position - Luigi Crocetti e Rossella Dini (1990, p. 254) proposed to invert the position of areas 5 and 6: such proposal has been experimented in Catalogo storico 1974-1994 (Bibliografica 1996). It would illogical to separate informations (those now in areas 4 and 6) all related to publishing activity. Crocetti 2000 affirms: 'the series is a publisher's format, so its place in description standard is the nearest to name of the publisher. The physical appearance of the document depends - generally - from the publisher's choice, from the inclusion in a certain series, not the opposite way. More, all agree on the fact that the series title is a title owned in common by others documents: so, as a title, the place of series title should be nearer to the first areas of the standard'.
Informations - Italian contributions emphasized that in describing monographic publications area 6 informations have not any indipendence (Petrucciani-Scolari 1989 e Visintin 1996), because their role is strictly connected with the identity of publication described. A single document evidence may not be sufficient to describe in an acceptably complete way a whole series. All prescriptions about generic or distinctive titles must be referred to a set of bibliographic entities (of course, distinction is possible between two entities at least), so it is - by definition - impracticable when describing a single document, with only the series statements exhibited in it. As Revelli 2000 remarks: 'title proper of series don't present - in this case - any problem of uniformity or require to know the first element of the series itself. After that, there's the question about the opportunity of a distinction in that area between sections and sub-series (Petrucciani-Scolari 1989 e Crocetti-Dini 1990), provided that any decision about the common title is not relevant to the identification of the monographic publication'.
Of course, the application of an FRBR format could make unnecessary many of these affirmations. But in can be noted that also in FRBR (p. 40) the series statement is included among the attributes of a manifestation, listed just after the attributes pertaining the publishing and before the physical attributes. It clearly demonstrate that series statements are (or may be) function of the manifestation identity, not a bibliographic entity to consider separately in every case.
Note area
Crocetti-Dini 1990 proposed to invert positions of areas 7 and 8, thinking that "by definition, notes can deal with any element in the bibliographic record, also with the informations in area 8". Such inversion is adopted since 1990 in the Italian library science bibliography, published quarterly under the title Letteratura professionale italiana, which follows - with some adaptations - the ISBD standard.
Errata corrige
p.16-17 [third example] ... Parallel title : parallel statement of responsibility >>> Parallel title / parallel statement of responsibility
p.16-17 [ninth and tenth examples] the tenth example is printed twice, and the first time it follows without space the ninth example
1.4.4.5.4 [example] unfassen >>> umfassen
1.5.33 [second example] there are two statements of responsibility, both preceded by a slash
1.5.4.10 [last example] Hermann Hess >>> Hermann Hesse
Bibliografica 1996 - Catalogo storico 1974-1994 / Editrice Bibliografica ; a cura di Luigi Crocetti. Milano : Ed. Bibliografica, 1996. 189 p. ISBN 88-7075-448-0
Crocetti 2000 - private communication to AIB Group, June 2000
Crocetti-Dini 1990 - ISBD(M) : introduzione ed esercizi / Luigi Crocetti, Rossella Dini. Nuova ed. interamente riveduta e ampliata. Milano : Ed. Bibliografica, 1990. 272 p. : ill. (Bibliografia e biblioteconomia; 38). ISBN 88-7075-252-6
Dini 1987 - L'area della pubblicazione: inquadramento e problemi / Rossella Dini. "Bollettino d'informazioni /AIB", 27 (1987), n. 2, p. 141-153
Grimaldi 1987 - Il problema catalografico dell'edizione / Teresa Grimaldi. "Il bibliotecario", n. 13 (set. 1987), p. 103-112
Guerrini 1987 - Il trattamento catalografico dell'edizione / Mauro Guerrini. "Bolletino d'informazioni / AIB", 27 (1987), n. 2, p. 133-140
LPI - Letteratura professionale italiana. "Bollettino d'informazioni / AIB", 30 (1990)-31 (1991); poi "Bollettino AIB", 32 (1992)-
Petrucciani 1991 - [Recensione a Crocetti-Dini 1990] / Alberto Petrucciani. "Bollettino d'informazioni / AIB", 31 (1991) n. 2, p. 183-186
Petrucciani-Scolari 1989 - Presente e futuro della descrizione bibliografica: dopo la revisione degli standard: le nuove ISBD e oltre / di Alberto Petrucciani e Antonio Scolari. "Biblioteche oggi", 7 (1989), n. 2, p. 165-194
Revelli 2000 - private communication to AIB Group, June 2000
Tirelli 1989 - A proposito di date, edizione e pubblicazione / di Giambattista Tirelli. "Biblioteche oggi", 7 (1989) n. 3, p. 387-391
Visintin 1996 - Tra parentesi: la collezione nella descrizione / Giulia Visintin. In: Il linguaggio della biblioteca. Milano : Ed. Bibliografica, 1996, p. 712-719