Signature Statement Model

[flapka]

The model generally looks sensible.

Can the group say a little bit more about the decision to model signature statements for Instances and Items?

I assume you've modeled them for Items in accordance with your assertion: "Although signature statements are recorded based on an ideal copy, it is not uncommon for two copies in hand with same title and edition to result in different signature statements due to some of the complexities outlined above, among others."

Is the desire to model it for Items to accommodate those instances where there are Signature Statement variants within a single edition/issue/Instance?

If so, is there a plan to apply a similar Instance/Item modeling for other attributes that are generally descriptive of an Instance but which may vary within a single Instance, such as: printing statement, printer/manufacturer, printing/manufacture date, publisher's bindings, publisher's hand-coloring, base material (paper), presence of errata, etc. (see DCRMB Appendix E)?

[jak473]

This is a good question, particularly in that the recommendation document goes beyond description of the model to also include discussion on implementation - with a nod toward content standards.

ex:hasSignatureStatement has an open domain; as such, catalogers have flexibility to determine when to attribute a Signature Statement to an Item versus an Instance (the former being where it varies for a particular item-in-hand). The same would go for the other attributes you mentioned - some of which are already in the model, some are in-development and some are not yet considered. That said, we use open domains wherever deemed important.

[deborahjleslie]

I second the argument for allowing signature statements for items, although it is extremely rare. For example, the Folger has a separate record for each of our 82 First Folios. Although they do not reflect this now, ideally each description would reflect the exact copy. We would want to be able to label these as item-level signature statements.

[deborahjleslie]

I question the desirability of including collation statements in this model. Apart from the signatures themselves, a statement of collation has a different prefix and a more types of information than signatures.

In any case, I object to the characterization of collation statements as "in many cases," since it is used extremely rarely. Possibly only by Richard Noble. (-: Which leads me to my next comment ...

[deborahjleslie]

What is the function of the overview? How much information does it need to provide to justify the model?

I ask because I disagree with how much of it is presented. For example, the function of a signature statement is primarily to indicate the structure of a codex and be able to refer unambiguously to each leaf in the volume. This aids in comparison of copies, but not more so than title transcription or statement of extent. There is also the matter that not all gatherings are signed, which signature statements provide for. There are even completely unsigned books that we give "signature statements" for when the gatherings can be determined.

This contradicts the definition, which states that signatures are "printed at the foot of the rectos of the first few leaves of each gathering." Or, maybe there's a signature on the second leaf only.

[deborahjleslie]

Suggested revision of Definition:

Definition: A formulaic statement describing the pattern followed in assembling the sheets of the book structure of a volume, as expressed in its signatures. Signatures are can be letters, numerals, symbols, or a group of such characters,typically printed at the foot of the rectos of the first few leaves of each gathering. (quire) to aid the binder in correctly assembling the sections.

Clean copy: Definition: A formulaic statement describing the structure of a volume as expressed in its signatures. Signatures can be letters, numerals, symbols, or a group of such characters, typically printed at the foot of the rectos of the first few leaves of each gathering.