I think this has to do with printing and doesn’t need to be considered a new manifestation, unless you have additional evidence that there is something else different between the 2008 printing and the 2010 paperback printing such as different extent, a different edition statement, a different publisher, etc. It doesn’t sound like something that users would consider bibliographically significant enough that they would prefer one printing over another.
Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries From: Julie Moore Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2013 7:37 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] reprint relationships Adam, This reminds me of my recent post on Autocat ... that uses the phrase "Transferred to digital printing 2010." I guess I am still pondering exactly what that means - and how this falls into the FRBR terms. Julie (Please excuse the cross-posting.) Book in hand ... Title: International organizations and implementation : enforcers, managers, authorities ISBN: 0415599660 Paperback "Transferred to digital printing 2010." -- T.p. verso. The ISBN brings up a several interesting records in OCLC, each with their own problems. All of these had the date 2010. When I did a title search, I found a DLC record that looked like a perfect match to me although it had the ISBN for a hardback and an ebook, but not the paperback, with the date of 2008. (I ended up adding our holdings to this record #128236964, and I added the ISBN for the pbk in our local catalog.) My question is about that statement on the title page verso: "Transferred to digital printing 2010." In my mind, this seems more like a printing date, so I ignored it ... moving on to the publication date, 2008. Has anyone seen that phrase before? "Transferred to digital printing 2010."-- And how are we to handle it? Thanks kindly, Julie Moore On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Adam L. Schiff <asch...@u.washington.edu> wrote: In RDA Appendix J "reprinted as" and "reprint of (manifestation)" are listed hierarchically under "reproduced as" and "reproduction of (manifestation)". I have a 2010 large print edition of a book originally published in 2003. The manifestation in hand says "This optimized ReadHowYouWant edition contains the complete, unabridged text of the original publisher's edition. Other aspects of the book may vary from the original edition." I was considering including a 775 field in the RDA record for the large print with the relationship designator "reprint of (manifestation)" and a description of the 2003 edition. However large print editions are not reproductions, so the placement of "reprinted as (manifestation)" hierarchically under "reproduction of (manifestation)" seems suspect to me. Reprints are clearly equivalent manifestations, but not necessarily reproductions. Shouldn't "reprinted as" and "reprint of (manifestation)" be taken out of the reproduction hierarchies in Appendix J? Adam ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- Julie Renee Moore Head of Cataloging California State University, Fresno julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com 559-278-5813 “Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from themselves.” ... James Matthew Barrie
