ExLibris Rosetta

By Anonymous on Sat, 02/14/2015 - 09:43

Forums

I was originally pointed to a source by an article published in The Genealogist. The article provided a complete citation for the book in question [as printed in the article: “Walter Clark, ed., The State Records of North Carolina: Miscellaneous, 22 (Goldsboro, N.C., 1907): 246 (Arrears of Quit Rents, Tyrrel [sic] Precinct).”]. While it is very tempting to just use the information in the article without going any further, I wanted to see if I could find the cited source to determine whether there might be additional information I could glean from it.

I found a reference to this book in FamilySearch, and also found that they have a digital image available. When I went to the image, I found that it had been digitized using ExLibris Rosetta. The URL for the image is https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE197707.

I know that what I am looking at is an image of a reprint of a book, and I also know that my reference note requires me to a) identify the original book, and b) identify where I found the image. My confusion is with the second half. As stated, I got to the image from FamilySearch, but when I access the image, there is no longer any indication that I am in FamilySearch. ExLibris Rosetta information is in the banner, the copyright at the bottom is Ex Libris Ltd, and the URL gives no indication of FamilySearch. My question is whether my citation needs to care how FamilySearch made the image available, and is there any necessity to cite ExLibris Rosetta?

My working reference note is:

Walter Clark, editor, The State Records of North Carolina — Vol. XXII: Miscellaneous, (1907, reprint 1994); digital images, FamilySearch (https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE197707 : accessed 14 February 2015), 246 (Arrears of Quit Rents, Tyrrel [sic] Precinct).

Normally I would avoid such a specific URL, but I am thinking it might be required in this case.

Or, am I overthinking this and making it more complicated than I need to? Perhaps all I need is a more straightforward reference note that does not worry about how the image was created and delivered, such as the following?

Walter Clark, editor, The State Records of North Carolina — Vol. XXII: Miscellaneous, (1907, reprint 1994); digital images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ : accessed 14 February 2015), 246 (Arrears of Quit Rents, Tyrrel [sic] Precinct).

So I am turning to the voice of reason for advice.

Tom

 

Submitted byEEon Sun, 02/15/2015 - 17:30

Tom,

Given that ExLibris Rosetta is a delivery tool, you are right to conclude that it need not be cited—no more so than ExLibris Primo that's used as the "discovery" tool at Family Search.

As for the URL, either the long or the short would be acceptable. EE would be inclined to use the long URL in this case, as you did, because using just the short version would call for adding some path or database ID by which to locate the book amid a billion or two records at the site.

With the rest of the citation, you're headed in the right direction, with a few easily fixable items:

Substantive issues:

  • Publication data is not complete for the book.
  • Details that belong in Layer 1 (the description of the book and its content) are mixed into your Layer 2).

Tweaks:

  • The volume number should not be italicized because it is not part of the formal title.
  • Commas are superflous in front of an open parentheses (actually, they splice the parenthetical statement from the preceding item it was meant to modify). In everyday writing and in citations, we use a comma after we close out the parenthetical information, but not before.
  • Most style guides today recommend using arabic numbers for volume numbers, rather than roman numerals.

All things considered, EE's version would be this.

Walter Clark, editor, The State Records of North Carolina, vol. 22, Miscellaneous (1907, reprint Wilmington, NC: Broadfoot Publishing Co., 1994), 246 (Arrears of Quit Rents, Tyrrel [sic] Precinct); digital image,  FamilySearch  (https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE197707 : accessed 14 February 2015).

Submitted byrraymondon Tue, 02/17/2015 - 11:17

Tom and Elizabeth,

FamilySearch is considering switching to a different delivery mechanism for scanned books. The current book URLs will probably change. While I can't promise it, https://books.familysearch.org is likely to persist as a starting point for accessing FamilySearch books. Going to that URL and searching for the title is likely to work for the foreseeable future.

Robert Raymond
FamilySearch

 

Submitted bytmphelpson Mon, 02/16/2015 - 12:24

Thank you for your feedback. It is good to know that sometimes my instincts are on target. On the other hand, some of your corrections show me that sometimes I should go with my first inclination rather than overthinking (I had some of the things you said and then took them out, because ...).

I am left with one point of confusion. You said "The volume number should not be italicized because it is not part of the formal title." Okay, fair enough. But then why does "Miscellaneous" remain italicized? When I look at the title page of the book, it looks like "Miscellaneous" is part of a descriptor of the volume number. Intuitively it seems that they should either both be italicized or both be not italicized. (And frankly, it looks really weird to see the non-italics surrounded by italics.)

Thanks,
Tom

 

Tom, Miscellaneous is the subtitle of that particular volume. State Records of North Carolina is the main title for all the volumes. Then each volume has a specific subtitle that distinguishes it. See 12.71 "Multivolume Works: Different Subtitles" and 12.73 "Multivolume Works: Single Volume Split into Several." The same principle applies to published microfilm series that have "parts," as with EE 3.18.

The phrase "Volume ___" would be used (with a capital V) only if that phrase were part of the actual title of a book, as with the Hanh, Old St. Stephens ... example at 12.25.