Date: 2013-08-01 02:26 am (UTC)
weirdquark: Stack of books (Default)
From: [personal profile] weirdquark
I'm a cataloger and I work with rare books where differences in editions are important, so yeah, I would. :)

There are cataloging rules that say how different something can be before it is considered to be a new edition rather than just a reprint (rare book catalogers and catalogers of special collections argue for more) which means a new record -- when I'm cataloging a book I can put different reprints on the same record with the original with a note that identifies each as the original or a reprint, but something being officially put out in four volumes instead of five would need a new record even if the text is the same.

I did have another title that was originally published in one volume that I got in two, but that was a case of being bound differently; the second volume had a handwritten title page and obviously had not been published with the intent of being in two volumes; that one was an exact printing (or reprint, if there was more than one printing) of the one volume version and went on that record with a note that our copy was bound in two volumes instead.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org

Profile

weirdquark: Stack of books (Default)
weirdquark

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819 202122
23242526272829
30      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 31st, 2025 01:23 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios