Response/Comments from CEAL RDA Review Committee on Edition Statements

(Comments are in the order of correspondences. Also see Appendix for original request)

[Original request from Keiko Suzuki] it's been a while and you probably need to go back to the note/draft/old file, etc. (I did, too!) But CEAL submitted to the comment below to the ALCTS Webpage:

"2.5.0.2./2.5.1.2. (Recording edition information/Edition statement) Sources of information Bullet 1. Take edition information/an edition statement from the same source as the title proper Bullet 2. If edition information/an edition statement does not appear on the source from which the title proper is taken, take it from another source within the resource itself.

Statement of problem: Many East Asian publications have variant edition statements formally presented in more than one location (e.g. title page, title page verso, colophon, etc.) and all referring to the same edition, not to named revisions of the edition. If only one or some, but not all, of these statements are recorded by the cataloguer, it could be confusing as far as identification is concerned.

Solution/Reason: Take edition information from all formally presented statements within the resource itself". (emphasis added)

[Shi Deng’s response] Keiko, I don’t believe the cited above is the original CEAL comment. The solution/suggestion in ALA comments cited above “Solution/Reason: Take edition information from all formally presented statements within the resource itself” is vague and lack suggestion on how you would transcribe multiple edition statements.

I copy CEAL original here for you and the CC:DA triage group.

2.5.1. Edition Statement

2.5.1.1.-2.5.1.2.

Statement of problem:

This section did not provide guidelines and instructions on dealing with multiple unlinked/separated edition statements.

This is not a situation unique to CJK materials, but occurs as well in the case of Western-language materials. It came up in the Autocat discussion under Subject: AACR2 and multiple edition statements in Sept. 2004

Solution/Suggest to Add:

2.5.1.1. Definition: a bullet between current first and second that is similar to 2.3.0.1.: “More than one edition statement may appear in the resource itself (e.g., on a title page, title frame, etc.; on a cover, colophon, etc.; within other preliminaries), on a jacket, sleeve, container, etc., or in material accompanying the resource.”

2.5.1.2 A bullet between current first and second: “If more than one edition statement appears separately within the resource itself, take them in the order of their prominence.”

Suggest to also add:

2.5.1.8. additional edition statement (note: It differentiates from parallel edition statement)

Instruction on how to record the additional edition statement, when to record as sequential and when to record in a note.

Please refer to ISBD (G) 2004 revision, section on edition area

[Original request from Keiko Suzuki]: Could you give me some examples of the "variant edition statements formally presented in more than one location (e.g. title page, title page verso, colophon, etc.) and all referring to the same edition, not to named revisions of the edition"?

[Shi Deng’s response]: Examples I found:

青蛇 / ǂc 李碧华著. 7201049461

Cover: 插图典藏版 (Illustrated ed.)

Colophon: 第1版 (1st ed.)

霸王别姬 / ǂc 李碧华. 9622575811

Colophon: 書名霸王別姬（新版本）（new ed.）

Colophon: 十版日期二〇〇三年五月 (10th ed.)

Chinese publications most often have a standard edition statement in colophon: 第1版 (1st ed.). Sometimes, they have additional edition statement, such as examples given. However, in RDA or AACR2, no rules articulate how you would transcribe edition statements in such a situation. There have been two ways of common practice:

Practice 1: LC suggestion of giving one in the edition area and the other in note.

250 第1版. 500 “插图典藏版”—Cover.

250 10版. 500 “新版本”—Colophon.

Practice 2: ISBD (M) 2.4.2 (http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/pubs/isbd_m0602.pdf) of recording all edition statements in the edition area

250插图典藏版, 第1版

250新版本, 10版.

Also this is not unique CJK situation. Examples given in Autocat discussion in under subject: AACR2 and multiple edition statements:

Cover & t.p. verso: 3rd ed.

Half t.p. & colophon: 2nd large print ed.

My colleague also runs across the situation with directly access electronic resources that have multiple editions statements on piece. Unfortunately she didn’t keep the examples.

[Original request from Keiko Suzuki]: I can think of an example of the named revision plus regular ed. statement in Japanese ("Kaiteiban [rev. ed.]" in t.p. and "Shohan [1st ed.]" in colophon), but this is covered by 2.5.3.2 2nd bullet.

If you see the below message, LC is suggesting regarding ALA's recommendation that:

"Are there international aspects to consider? Consider giving just one as data element and other as note?"

[Shi Deng’s response]: Keiko, Marilu and I discussed about the options of ISBD (M) 2.4. and LC suggestion cited above. Both options have been used in common practice, each one has its pros and cons in terms of how to transcribe multiple edition statements. Although I stated in my CEAL comments to prefer taking them in the order of their prominence in the edition area, we would go with either way as long as there is clear instruction on how to record multiple edition statements, e.g. take edition statement from where within the source and put where when you transcribe it.

[Hideyuki Morimoto’s follow-up comments]: Thank you very much for your further work on this issue regarding edition statements. I do not have any objection. However, I find it interesting mention of current practices. For the 2nd example of:

10th ed. and new ed.

I wonder whether Practice 1 is indeed one of the current practices, in addition to Practice 2. Descriptive cataloging of East Asian material (the current practice), Ch. 2, p. 7 has a similar example of:

latest ed. and 1st ed.

which is instructed to be recorded as:

250 Zui xia ban, Chu ban.

together in the ed. statement field. As far as the current practice is concerned, my understanding is that note fields are used to denote the edition history. For instance,

OCLC #24989593

250 Yu chong pai chu ban.

260 ..., |c 1943.

500 1936 Shanghai chu ban, 1941 Shanghai 7 ban.

In this case, the resource described is "Yu chong pai chu ban" published in 1943, which has previous publication history of the 1st Shanghai ed. published in 1936 and the 7th Shanghai ed. in 1941. Or,

OCLC #28834328

250 Di 1 ban.

260 ..., |c Minguo 23 [1934]

500 Min guo [sic] 2 nian (1912) chu ban.

The resource described is "Di 1 ban" published in 1934, which has previous publication history of "Chu ban" published in Minguo 2 [1912].

While I myself cannot trace the origin of the examples in Descriptive cataloging of East Asian material, Ch. 2, p. 26:

250 6 ban ben.

500 Minguo 2 nian (1912) chu ban.

250 4 ban.

500 1936 Shanghai chu ban.

I have been interpreting these in the same light as OCLC #24989593 above in that the ed. statements of the resources described are in the ed. statement fields and that what is in the note field might be publication history of previous editions.

[Cathy Yang’s follow-up comments]:

I have some questions [or comments] on the example being cited in the 2nd paragraph as quoted below in Hideyuki's most recent message of 2/22:

" I wonder whether Practice 1 is indeed one of the current practices, in addition to Practice 2. Descriptive cataloging of East Asian material (the current practice), Ch. 2, p. 7 has a similar example of:

latest ed. and 1st ed.

which is instructed to be recorded as:

250 Zui xia ban, Chu ban."

If we were instructed, to record, as it states above, my question would be:

I thought in transcribing edition statements in Chinese material, Chu ban and 1st ed. are being considered as different thing. "1st ed." would be "Di 1 ban", not "Chu ban"

In the same time, I'd like to share a practice in LC -- for multiple/unlinked edition statements, we have been specially careful when the following cases occur * in terms of the order of transcription for multiple statements:

A) When the publication is a "2nd ed, which is ALSO a revised ed.", the 250 transcription would be:

250: Di 2 ban, Xiu ding ban.

250: 第2版, 修订版.

250: Di 2 ban (Xiu ding ban)

250: 第2版(修订版)

B) When the publication denotes a "2nd ed. of the revised ed.", the 250 transcription would be:

250: Xiu ding ban, Di 2 ban

250: 修订版, 第2版.

[Keiko’s follow-up]: I will forward the comment as well as CEAL's original comment to RDA triage group, hopefully at the end of Monday. I'm sorry that I somehow misquoted CEAL's. I actually copied the comment from the Confluence website (which might be somehow summarized), but not from the file I received directly from this group.

At this point, I am thinking to add my comment, along with the current CEAL's comment, to the triage group like below:

1) I believe that the issue on the multiple edition statements appearing on different sources within the resource is not exactly unique for East Asian materials. Thus, I would like to have a clear guideline on the issue in RDA, such as ALA's original suggestion in 2.5.0.2 as well as 2.5.1.2 OR make 2.5.0.2 and 2.5.1.2 more similar to 2.5.3.2 SOI of named revision.

2) I prefer not to use note area for other ed. statements because a) there might be some confusion when we need to create a new record for a new edition; and b) it could be confused with ed. history rather than the other ed. statement.

Any comments/suggestions/additions would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

[Shi’s follow-up]: I like the point that Mr. Morimoto made that "note fields are used to denote the edition history" That's one of reasons Marilu and I liked to have ISBD approach and suggested it in our original CEAL comments as "take them in the order of their prominence."

However, it could be tricky as in what order you would record multiple statements, or try to determine which one is more prominence. It could end up with totally different order depending on each cataloger's interpretation and judgment.

Basically, I don't want to have a rule lacking clear instruction that would have catalogers to agonize on how to do it and as a result to have inconsistent practice. And Cathy's comments on sharing "a practice in LC -- for multiple/unlinked edition statements" make me think about the note instructed in CJK example on p. 18 before 1.2C of Chapter 1 (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/CJKChap1.pdf). It is practice that I don't want to have with future cataloging. Thinking of a machine generated record harvested from a digital resource that has multiple edition statements, how would you want a machine to capture them?

For the same reason, Marilu and I felt that we should not to agonize whether to go with LC suggestion or ISBD approach, as long as RDA address it with clarity that helps a cataloger to match a record with an item in hand, although we had our preference in the original comments.

As for Keiko's comments "I would like to have a clear guideline on the issue in RDA, such as ALA's original suggestion in 2.5.0.2 as well as 2.5.1.2 OR make 2.5.0.2 and 2.5.1.2 more similar to 2.5.3.2 SOI of named revision." I want to say that:

Because of multiple edition statements show up more often in revised editions just as examples Keiko (in your original message) and Cathy given. I deduced from reading your comments that you prefer ISBD approach as well. At the moment I am writing, I think that if we really want to record multiple edition statements in the edition area, we probably should suggest to use the example of AACR2 for recording illustration saying something like "in the following order: t.p. colophon, cover, ... etc." which lists most possible places. It might look awkward in some cases, but we would not have to agonize which statement is more prominence or try to associate one with the other in order to determine which one should be the first or should in parentheses.

So I would change Keiko's comments to: "I would like to have a clear guideline on the issue in RDA's "Source of information" (2.5.0.2, 2.5.1.2, and 2.5.3.2 SOI of named revision), as well as in "Transcription/Recording edition statement(s)" (2.5.0.3, 2.5.1.3, and 2.5.3.3) -- Note that headings used inconsistently for these 3 section which I hope it would be edited as JSC said. Also would like to see something like: When multiple edition statements found within the resource, transcribe (or record, whichever JSC choose to use) edition statements from the sources in the following order: title page, colophon, cover, ... etc.

[Jai-hsya Tsao’s follow-up comments] I have no problem with the multiple edition statements in the edition area. However a note is necessary for some cases. Most of times I have seen books with edition statements like “xin 1 ban”, or “xiu ding ban” then followed by “di 1 ban. I will have 250 as “Xin 1 ban, di 1 ban” or “Xiu ding ban, di 1 ban”. But once a while I have also seen something like “xiu ding ban di 6 ban” or some other edition statement. “Di 6 ban” here is not the 6th ed. (printing) of the revised edition merely a continuing counting of edition from the 1st edition. If I put "xiu ding ben, di 6 ban" in 250 is misleading information. In such case a note is necessary to clarify the edition statement.

[Keiko’s follow-up] Hi Shi and all,

Thanks very much for Shi to expand the intention of my comment. Yes, I think we should look at not only the source of information of ed., but also how to transcribe ed.

Regarding the order of preference, I have some questions:

1) For Shi, you wrote "we probably should suggest to use the example of AACR2 for recording illustration saying something like "in the following order: t.p. colophon, cover, ... etc." which lists most possible places." where exactly did you refer from this order of preference (AACR2 which ch/page)?

2) For all, does many of you agree with to have clear guidance of the order of the preference for multiple edition statements?

3) For all, if it's "yes" on the above question, how about using the same order of "2.2.1. Preferred order of information"? I agree that it's easier for me to have a list of preference, but could we justify having the specific list for the ed. statements, or we can also use 2.2.1. to simplify?

[Shi’s follow-up] to Keiko’s questions above:

1) -- Sorry, Keiko. I was just making an analog of AACR2 2.5C2. for illustration and didn't look at the RDA.

2) -- Yes.

3) -- Yes, use RDA 2.2.1 as preferred order of information.

[Keiko’s follow-up] Thanks, Shi,! So far, nobody has been replying my questions. Thus, I think I would write both your list and 2.2.1. as candidates. So could you please send me the information (where's your preferred list comes from)?

[Shi’s follow-up]: Dear Keiko, You don't need to give my list which I was just coming up when I was writing. Especially we have 2.2.1. that works. It would simplify just go by 2.2.1.

The point is that we need clear instruction and we don't have to make hard decision on to which order we put means what or how these edition statements related to each other. E.g. is this a rev. ed.'s 1st ed. or this is 1st ed.'s rev. ed. examples like you and cathy given.

You probably want to look at RDA 2.5.5. notes on edition info. I don't see it clearly cover the situation we have: no formal edition statement, but have "2nd ed. preface (再版前言)" or "rev. ed. afterwords (修订版后记)." In this case RI instructed to put in note area.

LCRI 2.2B3

Apply the option according to the statements in LCRI 1.2B4. Also, do not make up edition statements from information gleaned from introductions, prefaces, etc. Such information may be quoted in a note if considered important.

Appendix: JSC/ALA Follow-up Request for Comments on Edition Statements

From: Keiko Suzuki [mailto:keiko.suzuki@yale.edu]
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:07 PM
To: Shi Deng
Cc: Hideyuki Morimoto
Subject: Fwd: Query from the RDA triage group

Dear Shi,

I have been asked a query by the RDA triage group from CC:DA, which coordinating the responses from all the constituencies and find acceptable solutions for all. I would like to have your assistance on one particular issue regarding edition statement.

Sorry, it's been a while and you probably need to go back to the note/draft/old file, etc. (I did, too!) But CEAL submitted to the comment below to the ALCTS Webpage:

Statement of problem:

Many East Asian publications have variant edition statements formally presented in more than one location (e.g. title page, title page verso, colophon, etc.) and all referring to the same edition, not to named revisions of the edition. If only one or some, but not all, of these statements are recorded by the cataloguer, it could be confusing as far as identification is concerned.

Solution/Reason: Take edition information from all formally presented statements within the resource itself".

(emphasis added)

Could you give me some examples of the "variant edition statements formally presented in more than one location (e.g. title page, title page verso, colophon, etc.) and all referring to the same edition, not to named revisions of the edition"?

I can think of an example of the named revision plus regular ed. statement in Japanese ("Kaiteiban [rev. ed.]" in t.p. and "Shohan [1st ed.]" in colophon), but this is covered by 2.5.3.2 2nd bullet.

If you see the below message, LC is suggesting regarding ALA's recommendation that:

"Are there international aspects to consider? Consider giving just one as data element and other as note?"

However, if one or more ed. statement(s) end up as note, I'm not sure the note information would take into consideration when creating a new record for new ed.

Anyway, if you could think of some examples, I would really appreciate it. Thank you very much!

- Keiko
p.s.: Thanks also for your kind words on my CC:DA report. I'll respond separately to your "RDA update at CEAL, etc." message later.

Keiko-

The RDA triage group would like your input on the following issue raised in the RDA response table.

What ALA originally submitted:

2.5.0.2
This guideline currently does not cover edition statements appearing on multiple sources. Many single-part Chinese and Japanese monographs carry one part of ed. information on the title page and another part in colophon, e.g., "Kaiteiban" [Rev. ed.] on the title page and "Shohan" [1st ed.] in colophon. Colophons are often more important than title pages in East Asian publications.
We recommend adding as a new 3rd bullet:
* If edition information appears on multiple sources within a resource, take it from these multiple sources if the information is important for identifying the resource.

What LC submitted as a comment:

Are there international aspects to consider? Consider giving just one as data element and other as note?

In your opinion, would LC's suggestion above be an acceptable compromise, or should ALA re-assert its original position? Any guidance you can provide would be most appreciated.

Many thanks,

Kathy