Questions are listed in reverse chronological order (newest resolved questions at the top)

 

10/15: complete

Cite the unique database number for the entry as it's presented in the resource.

Inclusion of URLs is up to cataloger's judgment

Marcia will post to DCRM-L and update the Working Principles

 

 

7/28/15: complete

Your Message:	HI all, I'm not sure if this would be considered a proposal, but what should I do if I want to reference the 1996 cd-rom edition of Wing? Thanks! Nina
Your Name:	Nina Schneider
Response:	As long as the numbering of entries is the same between the CD-ROM edition and the print edition, you need not specify the format you used to access the edition, and the citation would be: Wing, D.G. Short-title catalogue of books printed in England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and British America, and of English books printed in other countries, 1641-1700 (1996 edition). (Assuming that's the correct title for the 1996 edition as well.) However, if there are significant differences between the print and cd-rom editions, then I would add "CD-ROM" to the modifier above: (1996 edition, CD-ROM)

 

 

7/20/15: complete

Your Message:	I had reason to look at the MARC21 documentation for the 510 field today and it made me curious to know if the SCF group (or the BSC) will be putting forth (or has already put forth) a proposal to get it updated: https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd510.html This sentence is definitely in need of updating: "Established forms of citations for bibliographies and catalogs used in cataloging rare materials are found in Standard Citation Forms for Published Bibliographies and Catalogs Used in Rare Book Cataloging." Also, many of the examples are no longer in compliance. Just as an FYI, I did get the SCF title changed in the last revision of the PCC BSR/CSR and in the LC-PCC PS for 25.1.
Your Name:	Manon Theroux
Response:	Thanks for bringing this up. The SCF Team decided to wait on proposing an update to MARC until the proposal to CC:DA on reference relationships in RDA is approved.

 

 

6/6/15: complete

Your Message:	I have to admit I don't really like the new SCF approach of tying citation forms so closely to the bib record (it doesn't seem very *standard* to me, given that different bib records were created according to different standards), but I'm sure there were pragmatic reasons for choosing to go this route.  What I'm wondering is: If the OCLC master record for a bib record gets revised (e.g. upgraded from pre-RDA to RDA), does that mean the citation form should also be revised if applicable?  Probably this would mostly come into play for edition qualifiers.
Your Name:	Manon Theroux
Response:	The SCF Team had a great deal of discussion about this, and we kept coming back to our primary goal - to get a user to a catalog record for the citation. We don't plan to update citation forms if catalog records are upgraded to RDA. We agree that this will mostly come into play for edition statements, and we are assuming this will not impair a user's ability to get to the catalog record for the citation.

 

 

6/13/15: complete

Your Message:

In the section below, I think the Evans citation needs the word "entry" inserted after the $c: ------------- MARC 21 Bibliographic Format Application Use the citation forms recommended in this list when creating citation/references notes (field 510) in a MARC 21 bibliographic record. These notes are described in Descriptive Cataloging for Rare Materials (Books) 7B14.2 and other DCRM manuals. The citation/references note (510) field provides a simple bibliographical citation for a published description of an item and specifies where in the resources that description appears; do not include other information. If necessary, use a general note (field 500) to record additional information provided by the resource cited. Create a citation/references note (510) field for titles which might be useful for retrieval, even in cases where this would involve repetition of information already recorded in a general note: General note (500) field: 500 __ $a Evans calls this the 2nd edition. Citation/references note (510) field: 510 4_ $a Evans, C. American bibliography, $c 14023

Your Name:

Manon Theroux

 

 

4/24/15: complete

The resource formerly cited as "Cohen-De Ricci," for which the citation form is now "Cohen, H. Guide de l’amateur de livres à gravures du XVIIIe siècle," requires an addition of the edition number ("6. éd."). The cited edition, published in 1912, is the only one to have been revised, corrected and extensively augmented by Seymour De Ricci (Henry Cohen having died in 1880). A freely available digital version is here: http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001167055 Thank you.

Kathie Coblentz

 

 

4/23/15: complete

Is it possible to fast-track a change? Two previous citations were wrongly merged into one new citation: Previous Citation: Mortimer, R. French 16th cent. ; Mortimer, R. Italian 16th cent. New Citation: Harvard College Library. Catalogue of books and manuscripts The problem is that the numbering isn't unique: "pt. 1. French 16th century books" and "pt. 2. Italian 16th century books" both start at "1". The new citation doesn't disambiguate French from Italian. (Also, I'm curious to know.... who does this form get sent to? I was going to send a message to DCRM-L, then realized there was probably a contact form on the RBMS SCF website). Thanks, Erin.

Your Name:

Erin Blake

 

3/18/15: complete

We received a suggestion that we solicit submission of links to digital versions of resources from users of the site. Do we want to add explicit language advertising this to one of the form pages? Or create a new form?

MB:  What will be easiest for us to manage and track?

AM: The simplest thing might be to have people just use the Contact Us form and add language to that page that explicitly mentions submitting links to digital versions. I don't think it's worth having a separate workflow just for this, and these comments would be simple enough to address. The language on the Contact Us page could say something like "Submit freely available links to digital versions of resources in this database here. Please include the standard citation form of the resource in question."

MARCIA WILL ADD THIS TO THE CONTACT US FORM

 

3/14/15: complete

In response to several questions from Manon, MARCIA WILL CONTACT WEB TEAM ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:

1. Change the label of the Notes field in the Submit a Proposal form to "Your comments/questions about this proposal" - ADDED

2. Ask if it is possible for the system to automatically email a copy of each proposal to the proposer. - REQUESTORS SHOULD GET CONFIRMATION EMAIL

3. Ask if the boxes in the Submit a proposal form could be made wider or expandable for better proofreading of submissions - BOXES HAVE BEEN MADE A LITTLE WIDER

 

 

3/14/15: complete

In the Introduction under "Simplicity", it says: "If a personal or corporate body name also appears in the title, the title alone suffices as the citation form." In the Working Principles under "Works Entered Under a Corporate Name", it says something a bit more specific, emphasizing that the name must be the *authorized* form: "If the authorized name of the corporate body appears in the title proper, omit the main entry element". Unfortunately, there is no similar guidance in the Working Principles under "Works Entered Under a Personal Name". It seems like there should be. Most of the citations themselves seem to omit the personal name from the citation in these situations, for example: Adams one-fifty Catalogue of the American library of the late Mr. George Brinley Henry R. Wagner’s The Plains and the Rockies (3rd ed.) But at least one does not: Duveen, D.I. Duveen collection of alchemy & chemistry Is there a distinction I'm not seeing that would account for not dropping the name entry in the Duveen case?  Thanks, Manon

Your Name:

Manon Theroux

I've corrected the Duveen citation (drop Duveen from the title)

MARCIA WILL ADD to working principles, section on "Works Entered Under a Personal Name" to say that if a surname appears in the title, drop the personal name from the entry. - COMPLETE

MARCIA WILL divide title index among the group and write up instructions for reviewing citations (did we drop personal name when surname is part of title)?

 

 

 

3/14/15:

The DCRM(C) team hasn't quite decided whether we want to submit proposals for citation forms that appear (or are somehow referenced) in our rules, but just to try out the process I submitted two proposals earlier today. I know I did at least one thing wrong with the first proposal (sorry!): I put the exact LC-authorized form of name in the Author field, including dates and the parenthetical addition. I now realize I should have omitted the dates and parenthetical addition. My questions: 1) OCLC # for Bibliographic Record: It took me some time to troll through Worldcat looking for a bib record that had actually cited the bibliography being proposed. After rereading the SCF Working Principles, I now see that the OCLC bib record citations are supposed to be for 510s used "in a catalog record by the requesting library". I didn't actually catalog the records I cited, and the citation forms used in those records might not even be entirely correct. If I submit any more proposals, should I omit the OCLC record citations (since I'm not cataloging anything) or should I continue to submit an OCLC # for a record created by someone else? Could a URL to a local library catalog record be used instead of an OCLC record? MB:  revise for clarity? Working Principles:   To be considered, such a request must include: 1)  a full bibliographic description, including an OCLC record number; 2)  a suggested citation form, devised according to the rules provided in the working principles; and, 3)  an indication that the bibliography or catalog has been, or will be, cited in a Citation/References note (510) field in a catalog record by the requesting library. If feasible, include the OCLC record numbers for records in which the bibliography has been cited. MARCIA WILL ADD "*required field" to the submit a proposal form and reply to Manon (not required for this project) - COMPLETE 2) Is the "Notes" field in the form supposed to be a place to put notes that appear in the bib record or is it a place for the proposer to put his or her comments, questions, etc. about the proposal being submitted?   AM: I assumed that the Notes field was for the proposer to put their comments and questions. I think it's important to have a field that serves this function. If we also want Notes from the bib record, we could make 2 fields, one labeled "Notes from bibliographic record" and one labeled "your comments/questions about this proposal" - MARCIA WILL CONTACT WEB TEAM ABOUT THIS. 3) Is it possible for your system to automatically email a copy of each proposal to the proposer? That would be really nice - it would let us keep track of what we've submitted. If not, you might add a note to the form suggesting that people print out their proposal before hitting the "submit" button if they'd like a copy (although, I actually tried that and the results were not good, at least using my printer - I got truncated fields). MB:  Forward this to the web team? AM: Sounds like a question for them, yes. And not a bad idea either. MARCIA WILL FORWARD THIS QUESTION TO THE WEB TEAM   4) Could the boxes in the form be made wider (or expandable like the Notes box)? I think it would help people proofread their submissions if they could see everything they typed in the boxes at a single glance. MB: Forward this to the web team? AM: Yes MARCIA WILL FORWARD THIS QUESTION TO THE WEB TEAM Thanks! Manon

Your Name:

Manon Theroux

 

 

3/12/15: COMPLETE

Thank you for your reply and your comments.

 

I see that for all the citation forms involving the French corporate body formerly known as the Bibliothèque nationale, the corporate entry has been changed to Bibliothèque nationale de France. However, this seems incorrect to me. The NAR in NAF for Bibliothèque nationale de France states that according to the Revue de la Bibliothèque nationale de France, printemps 1994, the "Bibliothèque nationale de France [was] est[ablished] Jan. 3, 1994, [by the] union of Bibliothèque nationale and Bibliothèque de France." Furthermore, according to the Journal officiel of France for Jan. 2-4, 1994, "decret no 94-3, merges Bibliothèque nationale and Bibliothèque de France into a single entity, the Bibliothèque nationale de France."

 

Accordingly, I believe that for any title published before 1994 (that is, I think, all of the titles included in Standard Citation Forms for Rare Materials Cataloging) the corporate entry should be:

 

Bibliothèque nationale (France).

 

That is also how the corporate entry appears in the catalog of the Library of Congress for the included works.

 

Thank you,
Kathie Coblentz, Rare Materials Cataloger

MB:  Jane, would you be willing to address this since you've worked on the BNF citations?

Jane has checked these, and they're correct.

 

3/11/15:

Hi,
I'd like to submit a proposal for Alden, J.E. Rhode Island Imprints 1727-1800.
However, there are two OCLC records for the title; one is dated "1949" and the other is dated "1949 [i.e., 1950]" with no reason given. The former, OCLC #10645023, has the main entry under title and Alden in the 700; the latter, OCLC #9224604, has the main entry under Alden.
The records that I have seen citing the Alden bibliography (OCLC 25263208 ; 433665008 ; 54748904 ; 43842649) make no distinction between possible editions; the Bibliographic Society of America's Publications webpage (http://bibsocamer.org/publications/publications/) only lists one edition.
Which OCLC record and date of publication should I use as the basis of my proposal? The Working Principles tells me to use the most recent edition, but I find myself hesitant to treat the OCLC #10645023 (260 $c 1949 [i.e., 1950]) as a later edition.
Thank you,
Amy Tims

MB:  Should I respond that she should use her best judgment?  Do we want to recommend a record?

AM: I looked at these records and could not make a determination without the resource in hand. I think using her best judgment is probably best, and if that means not using the 1949 [i.e. 1950] record, I think that's fine, and we should make that clear to her.

MARCIA WILL RESPOND TO USE HER BEST JUDGMENT

 

2/25/15:

Rees, E. Libri Walliae and Rees, E. Libri Walliae (supplement)

When I proposed the above publications some years ago for inclusion in "Standard Citation Forms", I requested that the citation form should be simply "Libri Walliae", as this is how it is universally known in the field of Welsh bibliography for which it is the standard reference work. I received a letter confirming that this would be the standard citation form. I am disappointed to see that this form has now been changed without consulting this Library as publisher of the bibliography, and I would like to ask you to reconsider this change.

MB:  The catalog record has personal name main entry:  Rees, Eiluned. Libri Walliae: a catalogue of Welsh books and books printed in Wales, 1546-1820.  Aberystwyth : National Library of Wales, 1987.   It's published by the national library, but doesn't appear to be a catalog of their books. It appears to be a work of personal authorship, as he states below about the supplement.

Please also note that the author of the supplement is Charles Parry (not Perry, as appears in the bibliographic information). Eiluned Rees is the author only of the original 1987 publication.

Timothy Cutts (Rare Books Librarian, National Library of Wales)

RESOLVED: Supplement author entry corrected to "Parry" and changed the citation form from "Rees, E. Libri Walliae" to "Parry, C. Libri Walliae". Explained that citation forms will include both authors and titles according to our working principles.

 

2/25/15:

From Kathie Coblentz

I. Re: "Catalogue général des livres imprimés de la Bibliothèque nationale: auteurs." (Represents #50 in SCF, 2nd ed.)
1) The subject "Anonymous writings" is not accurate. As the title suggests, this work is a catalog arranged by name of author. Anonymous writings are only included if the author has been identified, and then they appear only under the author's name, i.e. you cannot search for an anonymous work by its title. (Anonymous writings were included in the "Continued by ..." titles, but they have separate listings and separate citation forms.)  

RESOLVED: Removed the subject heading "Anonymous writings"

2) The subject "Union catalogs" is not accurate. As the title suggests, this work is a catalog of the holdings of the Bibliothèque nationale (France). It does not give holdings for other institutions. 

RESOLVED: Removed the subject heading "Union catalogs"

3) In accordance, I assume, with the principle listed in the Introduction that states:
"In the case of a corporate name/title entry, only the main element is used; subordinate corporate bodies have been dropped. If a personal or corporate body name also appears in the title, the title alone suffices as the citation form."
... the corporate name has been dropped from the citation form, and the title only is given. However, the title does not contain the important qualifying word in the corporate name, namely "France." How is the user supposed to know that this is not the Bibliothèque nationale of Luxembourg, Madagascar or the Malagasy Republic? 

RESOLVED: We will add the corporate name to the citation form.

II. Re: "Bibliothèque nationale (France). Catalogue collectif des périodiques du début du XVIIe siècle à 1939" (Represents #55 in SCF, 2nd ed.)
1) The full title of this work is: Catalogue collectif des périodiques du début du XVIIe siècle à 1939 conservés dans les bibliothèques de Paris et dans les bibliothèques universitaires des départements. For the sake of clarity, the full title should be in the "Title" field and the words "universitaires des départements" should not be omitted at the end, as they are at present ("Catalogue collectif des périodiques du début du XVIIe siècle à 1939 conservés dans les bibliothèques de Paris et dans les bibliothèques ...").

RESOLVED: We have corrected the title to the full title in both the citation form and the bibliographic entry.

2) This is, in fact, a union catalog, as the title and the last assigned subject ("Periodicals--Bibliography--Union lists") imply. However, the full title also states that it is a "union catalog of the periodicals ... in the libraries of Paris and in the university libraries of the departments," not just of the holdings of the Bibliothèque nationale. In fact, it includes the holdings of 75 other French libraries. Therefore, I question the use of the name of the corporate body as creator in this instance, under the provisions of RDA 19.2.1.1.1. 
The Introduction states that "the bibliographical entry provided for each citation is taken from information in the bibliographic record," but I could't find any indication as to whether the bibliographic record is the one created under earlier cataloging standards and left unchanged in the catalog of the Library of Congress, or the bibliographic record as it would be devised under current standards. This is an important difference, especially for the question of personal author vs. corporate body as creator in the bibliographic record, as well as for the question of the full form of the title proper.

RESOLVED: We understand your point; however, the citation form conforms to the Library of Congress catalog record from which we took the bibliographic information.  We will leave the citation form as is, as our primary goal is to get users to a catalog record for the resource.

III) The corporate body formerly known as the Bibliothèque nationale is now named Bibliothèque nationale de France, or, as its website abbreviates it (passim), BnF. The form using the parenthetical qualifier is an "earlier form."

RESOLVED: We will change our citations to the current form.

There is no citation form given for the online catalog of the Bibliothèque nationale de France, which I often have occasion to cite. I have been using "BnF" by analogy with the old standard citation form "BN." The form found on the "Accueil" page of the online catalog is "BnF catalogue général." The name of the institution appears on its main web page as "BnF Bibliothèque nationale de France," and there is a link titled "Accès au catalogue général de la BnF." What should the citation form be? 

RESOLVED: The citation should be "Bibliotheque nationale de France. BnF catalogue general"

Asked her to submit a proposal for this.

 

2/23/15:

Neither 'stc' as a keyword nor as a title brings up Pollard, A.W. Short-title catalogue of books printed in England, Scotland, & Ireland and of English books printed abroad, 1475-1640 (2nd ed.). Even though it can be found if searched as a previous citation form, 'STC' is the known name of this resource. Please add as a reference.

Deborah J Leslie

RESOLVED: Pollard does come up with a keyword search, but it doesn't appear until the bottom of the second screen of results.

 

2/14/15 on RBMS-L:

Should it be stated that the previous citation forms, and indeed the 1996 SCF as a whole, are now obsolete?

I gather that the new records allow only one author field, so a search on Durling as author (as suggested by the 1996 SCF index of names and titles) fails, though it works as a keyword. Is it impossible to represent such as Durling, Krivatsy, and many other personal compilers of institutional bibliographies or catalogs, as authors in the database? That isn't a huge problem, since SCF isn't a huge database, but it seemed worth asking, especially because many booksellers remain addicted to esoteric single-name references, many of which correspond to a much more informative SCF. (I love the expandable references in ISTC ...)

But one must end with a truly huge Thank You. It's purty darn elegant.

Richard Noble

Ann: I seem to recall that we do have multiple author fields, though I can't remember the last time we tested whether the site searches them in an author search. I did look at the example he gave, and it turns out to be a case where we determined the author to be a corporate body, and the name (Durling) is a compiler, so appears in a note, rather than as a second author. I am not sure how to explain all of that.....

MB:  We have 2 author fields in the template.   Not sure why we didn't go with three.  Did compilers always end up in the notes?  

RESOLVED: Posted to both Autocat & RBMS-L - 2nd edition should be considered obsolete 

     Followed up to question on RBMS-L re. compilers following the catalog record (note vs. added entry)

 

2/14/15ish:

RESOLVED: There were several questions about full bibliographic information not appearing with the standard citation form; this is related to the issues the Web Team has been having with WordPress reverting to earlier themes without our customizations. Melissa Hubbard has addressed these issues immediately and the Web Team has a plan for a solution which they are working on implementing.