<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1258">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4943.400" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=921544316-22022005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>I agree with
Robert Maxwell that these are form rather than content. Especially as we
look at incunables, there are dozens of ligatures we might want to
include, turning the whole thing into a big mess. I would like all of
these digraphs to be spelled out as separate letters; and the more universally
and uniformly this is done, the easier searching will be across our
catalogs. For instance, how will most American users search for
an "æ" in an OPAC- especially when they're at home using a catalog remotely?
What if the ligature is used on one t.p. by one printer, then not used somewhere
else for another edition of the same work? There are uniform titles, but I
would hate to throw that into the mix every time there is a title with a
potential ligature in it.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=921544316-22022005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=921544316-22022005><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT face=Arial>I would
keep the exceptions for Scandinavian languages, which I believe put
their non-Roman vowels at the end of the alphabet in their
dictionaries, following the assumption that those searching for
Scandinavian materials can type these letters into a search bar. I don't
know enough about how the French are dealing with <SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT
color=#000000>œ</FONT><FONT color=#0000ff> <FONT face=Arial>in the online
environment- what are the doing at
BnF?</FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=921544316-22022005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=921544316-22022005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>Just my two
centimes.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=921544316-22022005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=921544316-22022005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>Michael
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=921544316-22022005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=921544316-22022005><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT face=Arial>Michael J. North, northm@mail.nlm.nih.gov<BR>Head of Rare
Books & Early Manuscripts<BR>History of Medicine Division<BR>National
Library of Medicine<BR>8600 Rockville Pike<BR>Bethesda, MD
20894<BR><BR>(301) 496-9204 * fax (301) 402-0872<BR></FONT><A
href="http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd"><FONT
face=Arial>http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd</FONT></A><BR><BR><FONT
face=Arial>National Institutes of Health<BR>Department of Health and Human
Services</FONT><FONT face=Arial> </FONT></P></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT
face=Arial>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Deborah J. Leslie
[mailto:DJLeslie@FOLGER.edu] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, February 22, 2005 9:33
AM<BR><B>To:</B> dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu<BR><B>Subject:</B> [DCRM-L] Reconsidering
digraphs<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=Arial>Dear
cataloging colleagues,</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p><FONT
face=Arial> </FONT></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=Arial>This weekend
four of the five DCRM(B) editors are meeting at the Folger for intense editing
sessions. I’m happy to report that so far we’re making good progress, but find
there is an issue we want to re-open, and request guidance from the larger
community. It has to do with the separation of ae and oe digraphs, or
“ligatures” as the rules call them. Please keep in mind that we are not
speaking of decorative ligatures, such as ct’s and st’s as a single type-body.
We are only speaking of two letters written as one. </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p><FONT
face=Arial> </FONT></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=Arial>As far as we
can discover, AACR2 gives no guidance on digraphs. (One of us thought she had
found an AACR2 instruction to separate all ligatures, but now cannot find it
and wonders if she imagined it.) LCRI 1.0E says to separate ligatures into
their component letters, but makes exceptions for modern French and
Scandinavian, in which oe and ae are to be transcribed as a single character.
DCRB adds Anglo-Saxon and ancient Scandinavian languages to the exception
list. </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p><FONT
face=Arial> </FONT></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=Arial><SPAN
class=995172914-22022005>The current draft </SPAN>of DCRM(B) <SPAN
class=995172914-22022005>has </SPAN>simplified the instruction: separate all
ligatures into their component letters, no exceptions. But we feel we need to
reconsider that instruction given our desire to make the transcription more
precise in terms of content. AE and oe digraphs have always been part of the
MARC character set. We realize we are having a hard time justifying the
separation of digraphs in transcription. </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p><FONT
face=Arial> </FONT></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=Arial>An instruction
to transcribe all digraphs as digraphs, in any language at all, goes against
the grain of experience for many of us. The ESTC, on the other hand, has been
transcribing digraphs as such all along. We need to winnow out the aesthetic
arguments and focus on what we are trying to accomplish with transcription.
(All other things being equal, aesthetic arguments count, but only if all
other things really are equal). </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p><FONT
face=Arial> </FONT></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=Arial>At its most
basic level, the DCRM transcription principle is to transcribe the content,
but not the form, of printed text. Thus, we retain archaic and incorrect
spellings, but normalize capitalization and line endings -- the former being
content, the latter form. The digraph question comes down to this: do digraphs
represent content (does their joining together actually create a new letter)
or do they represent form (just a conventional way of writing these
combinations of letters)? We as a group are leaning more toward the
consideration of digraphs as<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>content. What do you think? </FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV class=Section1>
<P class=MsoNormal align=left><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><FONT face=Arial
size=3>_________________________________<BR>Deborah J. Leslie, M.A.,
M.L.S.<BR>Head of Cataloging<BR>Folger Shakespeare Library<BR></FONT><A
href="mailto:djleslie@folger.edu"><FONT face=Arial
size=3>djleslie@folger.edu</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial><FONT
size=3>http://www.folger.edu<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p><FONT face=Arial
size=3> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>