From: Tony Sanfilippo <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:15:35 -0400 Hi Rick, I think you are also kind of distorting my point. Okay—never respond to a liblicense post on an iPhone after discovering you've missed your connecting flight home, have to rent a car, and have a 4 hour drive ahead of you and it's midnight—Lesson learned. But you took the response apart and pretended it wasn't about revised dissertations. Yeah, I objected to being asked to do something that someone getting a cut of the sale used to do—not unlike how the savings on bagging our own groceries benefits the grocery store, not really the consumer or the producer. But that's not the same as objecting to describing conference proceedings when the book is based on conference proceedings, which I'm pretty sure I didn't do, and do do in the copy I provide YBP. I specifically said I had no problem with most of that list. I also initially posted the list in response to your post that libraries don't really exclude dissertations. Yes, they do, and I assume its placement at the top of that list isn't arbitrary I'm sorry that I referred to dissertations as previous work and caused this confusion, but my objection remains to asking publishers to include an indication about whether a book is based on the author's graduate work. It seems similar to asking their age when writing the book, and then choosing books based on that age. It is also worth noting that the list B&T/YBP provided very artfully handles the dissertation thing. While this was presented as information we should provide with our metadata, the listing also notes only what happens if provenance is revealed in marketing copy or frontmatter. The description doesn't actually note which ONIX field "dissertation" should appear in. Is there something to be learned from that? And the ingredients thing? Yeah, I mixed a metaphor and started this, but "ingredients" doesn't apply here. It seems much more like asking the farmer about the product being organic, before we had a standard for organic. (And do we even now have a reliable standard for organic?) It's not that I don't want to provide the information, it's that I don't think the question has a useful answer. A book being based on graduate work is about as relevant to the quality of the work as the age of the author. All scholarship is, by nature, based on previous work. I am more likely to give you an answer to the question about the provenance of the work if you can give me more than just Yes, dissertation or No as options. That was my point. Thanks, Tony On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 9:41 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:23:35 +0000 > > >Your analogy breaks down, Rick, because the book that originated as a > >dissertation does not really list its "ingredients" anywhere. There > >is no explanation to be found in any such book as to exactly what > >revisions were made to turn the dissertation into a book. > > You're distorting my analogy, Sandy. No one is asking publishers to > provide a list of revisions made to their dissertation-based books. What > YBP is asking Tony's press to do is provide some very basic information > about their books -- are they conference monographs, are they reprints, > are they revised dissertations, etc. Tony is objecting on the basis that > providing such information will tend to drive down sales. > > Am I really the only one to whom this response seems patently perverse? > Tony is making it seem as though the more people know about PSUP's > books, the less likely they are to buy them. > > --- > Rick Anderson > Interim Dean, J. Willard Marriott Library > University of Utah > [log in to unmask]