A.1: Introduction
A.1.1: It is strongly recommended that descriptive cataloguing should be closely in accordance with one of the major published descriptive codes, whether ISBD9, which consists of IFLA guidelines intended to form the basis for various national standards, or AACR2 (currently undergoing revision), (both currently undergoing revision), or one of the AACR derivatives, such as DCRM(B), or a metadata standard. Each library should document its standard by indicating its relationship to a published standard, and, where that published standard offers options, by stating the options followed. The function of the present guidelines is to recommend levels of cataloguing rather than to endorse a specified code.
A.1.2: It is important that the distinction between general and copy-specific/local data should be kept in mind: general data is edition-specific i.e. it applies to all copies of a particular edition of a book; and copy-specific data applies only to the copy in hand. However, some copy-specific data (for example, a manuscript note about date of acquisition) may affect general data (for example, date of publication to be supplied for an undated item) and so should be handled with this in mind.
A.1.3: Levels of general and copy-specific data may be set independently, provided that the importance of copy-specific data is recognized (see A.3.2)10.
A.2: General data fields
Transcription of the title page is the basis for all levels of description, and the recommended minimum level is:
A.2.1: Transcription — with omissions indicated — of title, edition statement, and preferably imprint area, though by tradition the imprint area is the one which traditionally has been most often formalized, by recording the date in arabic (eschewed in DCRM(B) and the 2007 ISBD) and by not indicating the omission of addresses.
A.2.2: Extent of edition in terms of printed pages/leaves or, in the case of multi-volume works, number of volumes, with the addition of format or, where format is impracticable, height11.
A.2.3: Any notes required to clarify the above elements of description.
It is recommended that records created to higher levels will include some or all of the following:
A.2.4: Retention of original punctuation in areas employing transcription. This will be especially appropriate for national libraries and other institutions which have special responsibility for creating definitive records. Be aware that in some areas of the record this may lead to double punctuation as transcribed and prescribed punctuation duplicate each other.
A.2.5: More detailed pagination statement — accounting for all leaves in the edition — and pagination of multi-volume works.
A.2.6: Additional notes on any features of importance, including, for example, signature collation and other aspects of physical make-up (for example, misnumbering of leaves or pages), authorship, bibliographical history, illustrations, typography, and paper (including watermarks).
A.2.7: Bibliographical references, both for referring to more detailed descriptions and also to relate the edition to standard bibliographies. To facilitate access by bibliographical reference, we recommend that references follow Standard Citation Forms for Published Bibliographies and Catalogs Used in Rare Book Cataloging, 2nd edition (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1996)12.
A.2.8: Bibliographical fingerprints13, input as instructed by a published standard in MARC 21 field 026 finger-print identifier. Cf. B.2.9.
A.3: Local (i.e. copy-specific or item) data fields.
A.3.1: Notes on imperfections (including cropping where any printed matter is lost) are obligatory and should specify leaves affected, unless there is very widespread loss of text, in which case exceptionally phrases such as ‘very imperfect’ or ‘loss of text throughout’ may be found useful. These notes must be carefully related to the general description: for example, if final blank leaves are recorded, their absence in any copies must also be noted. Where there is accompanying material (for example, publishers’ catalogues bound in — provided they are copy-specific and also are not being catalogued as separate publications — or inserted newspaper cuttings), it will need to be recorded in a local note. Libraries may also find it helpful to draw attention to other factors affecting consultation and/or reprography, for example misbinding, general fragility, or tight binding.
A.3.2: Out of recognition of the growth of interest in the history of the book and also for reasons of security (a record of copy-specific features will help identify stolen property) and preservation (researchers will have less need to sift through copies looking for provenances), it is strongly recommended that libraries include in their catalogue records at least basic notes on provenance (name and approximate date) and binding (approximate date), where these would be appropriate. For further details see section C.
A.3.3: Where circumstances permit and for important copies, it is recommended that more detailed notes on provenance (including transcription) and binding (description of style) should be made. For further details see section C. Where the notes would be too complex for a catalogue record, the record may contain references to other files (cf. C.2.6, C.3.6).
A.3.4: In the case of large collections or composite volumes which have many examples of the same or similar copy-specific details, collection-level records may be worth considering: but records for individual items should still contain notes on copy-specific details so that these details are available to users accessing individual records via other access points. See further C.2.4.
A.3.5: Fields used for local data should, unless there are fields specified in the system used for cataloguing for local data14, be input with, at the end, a location symbol for the holding library15. Where there are several copies corresponding to the bibliographic record, copy-specific notes for each should be kept separate and some method should be devised of linking notes to copies: for example, recording the shelfmark after the location symbol16 (cf. B.3.1), or beginning notes with ‘Copy 1’, etc. where ‘Copy 1’, etc. is also placed after the shelfmark. If two copies have an identical shelfmark, or if shelfmarks are unwieldy, a barcode may be required to differentiate between copies.
A.3.6: Because of the low level and often non-prescribed nature of much of guidance for such copy-specific information offered by published codes for descriptive cataloguing, provenance and binding are further discussed below in section C.