Anne, Thanks for sharing your ideas. This makes me think of an issue from the cataloging point of view. It is altogether too easy for information about the original item (usually in our case, a monograph) and the digital transcription to get mixed up. Personally, I have no problem with keeping information about the source a pg text was derived from, as long as it is clear that is information about the _source text_ not the Project Gutenberg digital resource. (For instance, there are places where we call a book "Third edition"--when it is our first; or mention a lccn which applies to the source, but not the PG text. From a library sciences point of view this could be said to make as much sense as saying that a PG text has 416 pages, because that is what the source had.) It is perhaps interesting to note that the tei header contains two distinct areas for bibliographic data about a digital text itself and source(s) it was derived from. This is one reason that it can appear overly repetative on firt glance. Andrew On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 Gutenberg9443@aol.com wrote:
What drives me to wanting to spit and bite is that our front matter usually fails to tell us when the book was written and/or published. I go to the LoC, and if I don't find it there I scream and bang my head against the wall for a while. (Not really. But I feel like it. Several times I really have cried from sheer frustration after looking in a few more places.)