Posting to Autocat
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:39:13 -0600, john g marr wrote:
>> We would use the record for the first printing of the revised edition, adding 250 $aRev. ed. if lacking, and correcting the number of pages.
> Presuming the number of pages cited is wrong?
>> We would only indicate the printing in the bibliographic record if for a rare book, and remove that if in the record being used;
> In this case, the change of pagination from 178 to 180 is not sufficiently great to require a new record, but if it had been a large change we would “see” 3 diff. eds. and put the printing date of the 1st appearance of the change [“XX print.”] in the 250 to distinguish the change from previous eds., if no other information was present (it happens!). Otherwise, there is no reason to create new records for subsequent printings in the same binding.
This is a case where there are differing rules. LCRI 1.0, section “Edition or Copy of Monograph” is quite explicit: (See at the Cooperative Cataloging Rules:
where it states:
“Also, consider that a new edition is involved whenever
1) there is an explicit indication of changes (including corrections) of content; or,
2) *anything* [my emphasis–JW] in the following areas or elements of areas differs from one bibliographic record to another: title and statement of responsibility area, edition area, the extent statement of the physical description area, and series area.”
But these guidelines are different from “Differences between Changes within” at:
“A5. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION AREA
A5a. Extent of item (including specific material designation).
A different extent of item, including the specific material designation, indicating a significant difference in extent or in the nature of the resource is MAJOR. Minor variations due to bracketed or estimated information are MINOR. Variation or presence vs. absence of preliminary paging is MINOR. Use of an equivalent conventional term vs. a specific material designation is MINOR. For example:
* 351 p. vs. 353 p. is MINOR
* 452 p. vs. x, 452 p. is MINOR
*  p. vs. 212 p. is MINOR
* 356 p. vs. 492 p. is MAJOR”
I personally like the LCRI rules since they are clearer and more precise, while the ALA guidelines will mix up different textual variants, and this mixing will be random because there are no set guidelines such as: “a difference of x number of pages, or x% of extent signifies a new edition/copy,* but they leave the very important determination of MINOR vs. MAJOR to “cataloger judgment,” or in my opinion, how the cataloger feels that day.
Again, I believe that this type of issue is an atavistic remnant of card production and today should be considered under the rubric of “how to display multiple manifestations and items.” In the brave new future of cataloging, these matters can be handled in automated fashion by directing the catalog to display only the information that differs from one record to another. Then each catalog could decide on its own what it wants to display. At the same time, cataloging could become more exact while training becomes easier because everybody would just transcribe *exactly what they see.*