RDA-L Symbol in publisher’s name (Tulipan)

Posting to RDA-L

On 10/8/2015 4:50 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
There is a German publisher called “Tulipan Verlag”, with “Tulipan” being an old-fashioned name for the tulip.

On the title pages of this publisher’s books, the “u” from “Tulipan” is replaced by a stylized tulip. You can see what it looks like on the publisher’s website:
http://www.tulipan-verlag.de/
In the copyright statement on the t.p. verso, the publisher’s name is printed with an ordinary “u”.

Strictly speaking, we’d need to apply RDA 1.7.5 (Symbols). According to the LC-PCC PS and also the German policy statement, we could probably use “u” instead of the flower in the publication statement, but would have to write a note and explain that there is a tulip instead of the “u” in the publisher’s name.

While cataloging needs to be “exact” and even “exact-ING” there does seem to be a practical limit to such situations. Transcribing this as something like: “260 $bT[u]lipan” with a strange note seems a bit academic to me. It does not help anyone to find this item or to understand anything better, and in fact, for most would just seem to be more of that “cataloger stuff”.

This will be especially the case when in the future–not if but when–there will be an image of the cover or t.p., e.g. http://amzn.to/1htM7GT

That said, it reminds me of a series on some Russian books, “Strela” which means “Arrow” which always appeared on the binding (soft cover) as a line beginning on p. 1 of cover, continuing across the spine and ending on p. 4 of cover, where the line ended in a point (the arrow). Often it had the text “Strela” somewhere on the cover. At other times the name of the series appeared only in the Russian CIP and at other times there was nothing but the arrow. In the NAF, it was an untraced series.

If memory serves, I discussed this with others and I decided to mention it in a note even if the name was only in the CIP or only as the arrow on the cover. I understood at the time that none of this was for the users of the catalog, where few even understand what a series is, but I told myself there was an outside chance it might be important for the selectors. A publisher’s series is of very little importance for anyone except the publishers, but the fact was, I always added the note for the catalogers. Why?

I did this because I wanted to cover myself and felt that if I hadn’t added the note, some very picky catalogers who knew about all this (perhaps someone like me!) would have been mystified at the lack of any information at all about the series, and might even decide that they had another edition/manifestation.

This went against LCRI 1.6A2 https://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/aacr2-chapter-1/1-6–series-area/1-6a2–sources-of-information which says not to transcribe it, but I thought it couldn’t hurt.

Today, I would come to a different conclusion, especially when such a series appears only as a line on the cover. I think I was being overly “exact-ING” and far too scholarly and “smart”. It helps no one and I would probably ignore it. Although if the series had been traced, I would have always traced it then and would do so today. With a note, of course.

Today I would transcribe your publisher as “Tulipan”, without a note, and do it with a clear conscience!

-362

Share