I admit I was not clear on the distinction between the two, which to
me reinforces the usefulness of precise and consistent terminology in
binding notes, and/or addition of access points for controlled
vocabulary terms, at least for users of special collections who are
interested in these specialized binding structures.
The entry in the RBMS controlled vocabularies binding terms is
"Dos-à-dos bindings," but there is no scope note.
I could not find a separate term in RBBIN for tete-beche bindings.
The Getty Art and Architecture Thesaurus also has the term "Dos-à-dos
bindings."
The scope note in AAT is: "Bindings structured so that two books share
a lower board, fore edges facing in opposite directions."
Tete-beche is not established in this vocabulary either.
The broader term in AAT is "Compound bindings" which, I assume, could
apply to either dos-a-dos, tete-beche, or any bindings that combine
two or more books into a single unit.
http://www.rbms.info/committees/bibliographic_standards/controlled_vocabularies/binding/tr428.htm
http://www.getty.edu/vow/AATFullDisplay?find=dos-a-dos&logic=AND¬e=&subjectid=300253366
Matthew
Quoting John Hostage <[log in to unmask]>:
> I don?t think either term is useful in a bibliographic record. Very
> few people will understand those terms. The kind of note I?ve seen
> is something like ?Spanish and English on inverted pages.?
>
> ------------------------------------------
> John Hostage
> Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger //
> Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services //
> Langdell Hall 194 //
> Cambridge, MA 02138
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
> +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark K. Ehlert
> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 10:33
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] te?te-be?che vs dos-a?-dos
>
> James L. Woods
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> In the recent discussion about Pete Wilson's bilingual te?te-be?che
> record (OCLC #861191254) I was curious about the form of the note.
> The 546 field says:
>
> In Spanish and English in format (i.e., in separate sections,
> inverted in relation to each other, each with its own cover and
> title page).
>
> If my (somewhat suspect) memory is correct, we used to describe
> these as "dos-a?-dos." Is "te?te-be?che" now preferable? I checked
> the RDA Toolkit but perhaps I missed something.
>
> Looking up the terms again, "dos-a?-dos" is different from "te?te-be?che":
> <http://www.abc-clio.com/ODLIS/odlis_D.aspx#dosados>
> <http://www.abc-clio.com/ODLIS/odlis_t.aspx#tetebeche>
> Wikipedia's got a photo of the former:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dos-%C3%A0-dos_binding>
>
> As to the form of note, I don't think there's a community preference
> per se--more a combination of personal preference plus being clear
> to the reader. For the few books I've cataloged in the te?te-be?che
> format, I tend to write something like "Bound back-to-back and
> inverted (te?te-be?che)" so as to incorporate both the technical
> term and an explanation in the same phrase.
>
> --
> Mark K. Ehlert Minitex
> Coordinator University of Minnesota
> Digitization, Cataloging & 15 Andersen Library
> Metadata Education (DCME) 222 21st Avenue South
> Phone: 612-624-0805 Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439
> <http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>
>
--
Matthew C. Haugen
Rare Book Cataloger
102 Butler Library
Columbia University Libraries
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Phone: 212-851-2451
|