<html>
<body>
Deborah and other DCRM-L list members,<br><br>
Having read the discussion on this list about recording Greek and Roman
signatures recently, I took a look at this section of the gamma
version of DCRM(B). I am not sure if this topic has been discussed
on the list before or not. I was added to the list about a year
ago. I hope I am not raising issues that have already been
discussed and decided, but I feel very strongly that the treatment of
signatures in non-Roman scripts needs to be discussed and
revised<br><br>
I am greatly distressed at the prescribed method of recording Russian
signatures. <br><br>
"For an alphabetic sequence in a language without conventional names
for the letters, such as Russian, render the signatures numerically using
square brackets."<br><br>
I suppose what is meant by "a language without conventional names
for the letters" is that the names for these letters are not a part
of conventional knowledge of someone who does not know the Russian
language or that one does not ordinarily refer to the letters by their
Russian names. But Russian of course has names for these letters,
and one could indeed use the Russian names, but such a description would
seem to me to be very cumbersome. <br><br>
The suggested method of rendering the signatures by numbers I find to be
very unclear and artificial. Would someone looking at the signature
pattern given as an example readily infer that [1-9] superscript 6
means that the signatures are using the first nine letters of the Russian
alphabet. I would probably look for Russian numerals or try to
figure out if Russian uses letters of the alphabet to represent
numbers. Furthermore, I would have to count through the
Cyrillic alphabet to find the gathering one is indicating by
gathering [8]. <br><br>
The very best way of recording these signatures of course
would be to follow Bowers and give them in the original script, and I
hope we will in the very near future be in a position where one could do
this on OCLC and RLIN (I think one can already do this on RLIN) and where
one could expect all library catalogues to be able to use vernacular
scripts rather than being dependent on transliteration. Until we
get to that point, the simplest and clearest way of recording these
signatures is by transliteration. The title and statement of
responsibility are transliterated so one has to presume that the catalog
user is familiar with LC transliteration of the letters. Why resort
to numbers in Russian but not in Hebrew? <br><br>
Even in the alternative method suggested (viz., romanization), I
have one further problem. Why can one not condense the
signatures? If one can condense Hebrew and Greek, why can one
not condense the Cyrillic alphabet? It is extremely cumbersome to
record each letter and superscript. <br><br>
If one does not use the vernacular scripts for signatures in
non-Roman languages, I think one should record the signatures
<b>consistently</b> by LC transliterations of the letters. That is
to say, treat Greek, Hebrew and Russian the same way:<br><br>
Signatures (in Greek): A-O[macron] {superscript 4].<br><br>
Signatures (in Hebrew): A-T [superscript 8]<br><br>
Signatures (in Russian): A-I[ligature left half]A[ligature right
half] [superscript 6].<br><br>
I think this is a much more scholarly as well as a much more
intuitively clear way of recording these signatures. <br><br>
If one uses the transliterations of the letters, one can much more easily
indicate whether the letters are upper or lower case. If one has
[alpha]-[gamma] followed by [Alpha]-[Lambda], I think I would conclude
that the second sequence is capitalized, but I am not sure I would pay
attention to the presence or absence of the capitalization of the name of
the letter if I simply saw [Alpha] -[Lambda] or
[alpha]-[gamma]. I think using the square brackets around the names
of the letters in Greek and Hebrew with the resultant need to indicate in
a note that [alpha] gathering is inferred is also cumbersome and
confusing. <br><br>
I regret that I will not be able to attend the discussion of DCRM(B)
revision at ALA. I hope that some discussion of this issue will
take place, and I sincerely hope that the treatment of these signatures
can be greatly simplified and made more consistent.<br><br>
Joe Ross<br>
Rare Books Cataloger<br>
University of Notre Dame<br><br>
<br><br>
At 12:12 PM 11/2/2004, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">This is the list of discussion
questions from the ALA 2004 annual meeting in Orlando. We welcome any
discussion from DCRM-L list members on these issues. Notes on the
discussion itself are to be found in the committee meeting minutes:
<a href="http://www.folger.edu/bsc/2004.2minutes.doc" eudora="autourl">http://www.folger.edu/bsc/2004.2minutes.doc</a><br><br>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><br><br>
RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee<br><br>
DCRM(B) Gamma Draft: Summary of Changes and Questions for Discussion at
ALA Annual 2004<br><br>
The following summary and questions have been prepared to help guide
discussion of the DCRM(B) gamma draft at the RBMS Bibliographic Standards
Committee meeting at ALA Annual 2004. Additional topics of discussion are
welcome. DCRB-L discussion of these and other questions is
encouraged.<br>
<br>
Summary of Major Changes from Beta Draft<br><br>
--Added "Objectives and Principles" (revised from stand-alone
original document; expect to incorporate omitted "Purpose &
Scope" and "Background" sections in DRCM(B)
"Preface" or Area 0 "Scope and Purpose")<br>
--Re-organized Area 1 rules to follow AACR2 more closely (statements of
responsibility now 1E rather than 1G)<br>
--Revised 2D1 (see below) to try to clarify and help distinguish from
2C1<br>
--Revised 4A6 (see below) to make the rule easier to consult<br>
--Added examples to 4F and 4G<br>
--Revised 5B9 (see below). Letterpress tables and illustrated title pages
now both treated as plates if not integral. The former is a reversal from
the Beta draft.<br>
--Re-organized Area 7 rules (now 7A-B not 7A-C) to follow AACR2<br>
--Expanded 7B9 to give instructions for signatures that do not follow
standard 23-letter pattern<br>
--Revised 7B14 so that reference notes are no longer required for
incunabula<br>
--Loosened up requirement in 7B19 to include designation of holding
institution in local notes<br>
--Changed order of the appendices.<br>
--Added new Appendix A "Levels of Cataloging" (revised from
stand-alone original document "Toolkit for Exposing Hidden
Collections"; condensed introductory paragraphs and expanded
descriptions of cataloging options).<br>
--Renamed and condensed Appendix B "Bibliographic Variants"
(was Appendix A in beta)<br>
--Added new Appendix E "Collection-Level Records".<br>
--Revised Appendix F "DCRMB Code for Records" to include more
levels of cataloging and instructions for treatment of earlier codes when
revising descriptions.<br>
--Expanded Appendix G "Title Access Points" (was Appendix B in
beta)<br>
--Renamed, expanded, and revised Appendix H "Early Letter Forms and
Symbols" (was Appendix C in beta). Left room at end for Deborah's
proposed summary of historical development of certain letters.<br><br>
General Questions<br><br>
MARC. Do we need to state that we have intentionally written the rules to
be independent of MARC? Area 7 is especially problematic; the rules
instruct us to preface notes with labels such as "References"
or "Contents" but MARC is designed to automatically generate
the labels through use of specific numeric tags. Comments on DCRB-L have
indicated some discomfort with current instructions. If we do need to
acknowledge the MARC problem, where would be most appropriate? In the
Preface? Do we need another Principle? Should we make a distinction
between the rules proper and the appendices (noting that the appendices
may reference MARC)? Would it be better to simply insert footnotes in
Area 7 as appropriate and remind the cataloger that the label is not
needed if using MARC?<br><br>
Formatting. Editorial Team tentatively planning on changing formatting to
make all paragraphs left-justified rather than indented and to use
hanging indents for all examples. Reactions?<br><br>
Organization. Appendices A and B could be combined to form a new
Pre-Cataloging Decisions section that would come between the Objectives
& Principles section and Area 0. Would this be preferable or do
people like having the two sections in separate appendices?<br><br>
Terminology. The Objectives & Principles section relies on FRBR
concepts and terminology much more heavily than the remainder of the
rules, which tend to use traditional bibliographic language (edition,
issue, impression, state) and AACR2 language (edition). Are there ways to
better integrate these sometimes overlapping concepts and terms? Do we
need to better incorporate FRBR terminology throughout the
rules?<br><br>
Headings. Do we need to explicitly state that DCRM(B) rules do not
include rules for headings (with the exception of some mention in
Appendix E)? If so, where? Preface? Principles?<br><br>
Objectives & Principles<br><br>
Monographic Focus. Is the section too monograph-specific? Do we want one
statement of principles that will apply equally to all DCRM modules or is
it okay for the statement of principles to vary somewhat from module to
module?<br><br>
Principle 5. Can we really claim that the rules follow AACR2 text
verbatim when existing AACR2 rules are adequate for cataloging rare
materials? Not sure this is always true and AACR2 is dynamic rather than
static. Should we soften this principle?<br><br>
IFLA Principles. Do we want to acknowledge any debt to the IFLA Statement
of International Cataloguing Principles? Should we re-examine our
principles (and rules) in light of this document, which was issued after
the original DCRM Working Conference, and is still in draft form?
[<a href="http://www.ddb.de/news/pdf/statement_draft.pdf" eudora="autourl">http://www.ddb.de/news/pdf/statement_draft.pdf</a>]<br><br>
Joe Springer's Questions. "One of the positive comments I remember
on the original Working Principles draft (March 2003) was that catalogers
thought it would help administrators understand why rare materials
cataloging differed from general materials cataloging. I think some of
that aspect was removed in my April draft, and perhaps even a bit more in
Manon's reworking. Although the statement's function in DCRM(B) is
properly explanatory rather than apologetic, we might still want to
elicit response about the apologetic value of the statement.
(Questions for readers of the draft might be: Are the "Objectives
and Principles" useful to catalogers in understanding the rules? Do
the "Objectives and Principles" serve to clarify the purposes
of rare materials cataloging to non-catalogers/library
administrators?)"<br><br>
Area 0<br><br>
0H. 3rd par. David Woodruff suggested that LCRI 25.1 might be a better
reference than LCRI 1.0E. I have added both LCRIs for now, pending closer
review. Any thoughts?<br><br>
0H. penultimate par. David Woodruff has suggested changes to the gothic
capitals section. Probably no time for discussion here but would welcome
comments in writing.<br><br>
0J2. Restored phrase "in continuance of the manuscript
tradition" because didn't want the cataloger to think that
apostrophes in modern contractions and periods in abbreviations should be
replaced with missing letters supplied in square brackets. Comments? Is
there a better way to express this?<br><br>
Area 1<br><br>
1F2. example. David Woodruff has questioned whether "dilatino"
and "lamorte" have been transcribed correctly without internal
spaces. Do we need instructions in area 0 on whether to insert spaces not
present in the source?<br>
Area 2<br><br>
2C1 and 2C3. Instructs not to treat a statement that doesn't name a
person or body as a statement of responsibility. Does not follow same
approach as 1G12. Is this a problem or is it okay to have two different
models for two different areas (note: the instructions follow
AACR2).<br><br>
2D. Larry Creider has pointed out that the distinction between the second
example in 2C1 and the example in 2D1 is not clear (nor is the AACR2/DCRB
phrase "Named Revision of an Edition"). Note that 2C1 refers to
revisions from the previous edition but 2D1 refers to revisions from
previous versions of the same edition. Deleted the word "named"
from "Named Revision of an Edition" as it seemed to be a source
of some of the confusion, though this does represent a deviation from
AACR2/DCRB. Also added an editorial comment to the example in 2D1. Are
the instructions in 2C1 and 2D1 any better distinguished? If not, any
recommendations? Is the distinction worthwhile?<br><br>
Area 4<br><br>
4A6. Deleted first paragraph and added section "headers" in
bold. Do the revisions make this rather long rule any easier to
consult?<br><br>
Area 5<br><br>
5B3. Brian Hillyard has questioned the instruction not to indicate
unnumbered pages at the beginning of a sequence if the pages fall
logically within the sequence (counting back to 1). He would prefer [4],
3-40 p. over [2], 40 p. especially in cases of doubt. Comments?<br><br>
5B9. In this draft, letterpress tables and illustrated title pages are
both treated as plates if not integral; the treatment of tables does not
depart from DCRB; the treatment of illustrated title pages is a departure
from DCRB. Regarding the latter issue, Brian Hillyard has said: "I
have re-read Bowers on all this, but I would comment (1) as influenced
the change of name from BDRB to DCRB, we are not engaged in
bibliographical description, and (2) even Bowers says (p.200) "On
practical grounds, however, there is some reason to differentiate
engraved title-leaves, as well as frontispiece portraits or vignettes,
from the ordinary plate in the body of the book" and
"Nevertheless, it must be admitted that there is a certain
convenience in associating an engraved title or prefixed portrait more
directly with the printed sheets and in the collational formula".
Bowers is concerned with collational formulae and I'm not citing him
directly in support of not treating engraved title p!<br>
ages as plates: the point is rather that he does provide evidence for a
view of engraved title leaves as standing slightly apart from
"normal" leaves of plates."<br><br>
Reactions? Whatever is eventually decided, the glossary definition of
plate may need substantial revision; the definition should probably
address both content (not necessarily illustrative?) and mechanics of
construction.<br><br>
5B15. Larry Creider has raised some questions about the proposed use of
"panels" to describe folded sheets and how this might fit in
with DCRM rules for cartographic materials. Comments?<br><br>
5C3. Added final paragraph with instruction not to consider illustrations
as colored if the text and illustrations are printed in a single color
(e.g. printed in green throughout). Comments?<br><br>
5C6 and 5E2. Larry Creider has noted that AACR2 considers maps and
illustrations in a pocket to be accompanying material and would record
them at the end of the physical description. is there a rare book reason
to depart from AACR2? Are these rules necessary?<br><br>
Area 6<br><br>
6A2. Larry Creider has questioned the instruction to note series
statements that appear on both the series title page and the monograph
title page (especially notes such as "Series statement also appears
on t.p. as: ...."). The instruction is included because it was
assumed that users of special collection materials would want, or would
expect, the catalog record to provide a reliable surrogate for the
monographic title page. Is this a false assumption?<br><br>
Area 7<br><br>
7B9. Are instructions for signatures that do not follow standard
23-letter pattern okay?<br><br>
7B19. We are deviating from AACR2 in putting local notes last. Is there a
"rare book reason" to justify this ordering of notes and change
from DCRB?<br><br>
Appendix A "Levels of Cataloging"<br><br>
Comments on original document? Comments on revisions from original
document? Non-MARC21 options to suggest?<br><br>
Appendix B "Bibliographic Variants"<br><br>
Reactions to the change of name for this appendix (was "Criteria for
Creating a New Record")? Reactions to deletion of initial paragraph
and bullets?<br><br>
Appendix C "Collection-Level Records"<br><br>
Is this appendix too MARC-centric?<br><br>
Appendix F "DCRMB Code for Records"<br><br>
Comments on instructions for treatment of earlier codes when revising
descriptions?<br><br>
Appendix H "Early Letter Forms and Symbols"<br><br>
Larry Creider has wondered whether a superscript "o" over a
"u" is sometimes more like the breve found over "u"
in older German and gothic penmanship to indicate that the two minims are
a "u" and not an "n". Comments from others
knowledgeable about such matters? Would the transcription still be a
small superscript circle?<br><br>
________________________________<br>
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.<br>
Head of Cataloging<br>
Folger Shakespeare Library<br>
201 East Capitol St., SE<br>
Washington, DC 20003<br>
202.675-0369<br>
djleslie@folger.edu<br>
</blockquote></body>
<br>
</html>