<html>
<body>
<font size=3>I suppose it doesn't matter that in this respect, at least
(though not in others), DCRM and LCRI diverge, even though the intent of
the DCRM instructions was to bring them into conformity with LCRI? That
was a concession, after all--and is now an anomalous legacy--since the
divergences from AACR are all otherwise in the direction of more exact
transcription.<br><br>
Anyway, as I noted previously, the deletion of the sentence in question
was quite recent (CSB 112, summer 2005) and perhaps rather too hard to
spot.<br><br>
</font><tt>RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY :
BROWN UNIVERSITY<br>
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-2093 :
RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU <br><br>
</tt><font size=3>At 1/9/2008 11:20 AM, Deborah J.
Leslie wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">For DCRM cataloging, the
"simplification" of the LCRI makes no<br>
difference, because explicit instructions are written in the rules.<br>
However, the discussion should be opened again when it's time for<br>
revision. It may be a whole new world out there by then. Speaking of<br>
which, did anybody read Michael Gorman's piece in the Dec 2007
_American<br>
Libraries_ about RDA? I was looking forward to the letters section
in<br>
the Jan/Feb 2008 issue, only to be dismayed that the whole space was<br>
taken up with responses ad nauseum to the English only article. <br><br>
_____________________________<br>
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.<br>
Head of Cataloging<br>
Folger Shakespeare Library<br>
djleslie@folger.edu<br>
<a href="http://www.folger.edu" eudora="autourl">http://www.folger.edu</a>
<br><br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu
[<a href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu" eudora="autourl">
mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</a>] On<br>
Behalf Of Elizabeth Robinson<br>
Sent: Monday, 07 January, 2008 17:38<br>
To: DCRM Revision Group List<br>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Oops on digraphs<br><br>
<br>
I asked Kay Guiles (CPSO) about this. Here is his<br>
reply:<br><br>
>>> Kay D Guiles 1/7/2008 4:50:08 PM >>><br>
Elizabeth:<br><br>
I have a May 1995 version of LCRI 1.0E that reads as<br>
follows:<br><br>
"Pre-Modern Forms of Letters<br><br>
In general, transcribe letters as they appear in the<br>
source. However, convert earlier forms of letters and<br>
earlier forms of diacritical marks into their modern<br>
form, as specified herein. Separate ligatures that are<br>
occasional stylistic usages ( OE dipus, alumn ae ,<br>
etc.) rather than standard usages in the modern<br>
orthography of the language, e.g., oe in French (as in<br>
oe uvre) or ae in Danish (as in s ae rtryk). If there<br>
is any doubt as to the correct conversion of elements<br>
to modern forms, transcribe them from the source as<br>
exactly as possible. (See also the section on Special<br>
Letters, Diacritical Marks, and Punctuation Marks.)"<br><br>
In the text above, I have used the underline to<br>
indicate ligatures. When we revised the LCRI several<br>
years ago, we thought we were "simplifying" by<br>
removing the distinction between determining<br>
"occasional stylistic usages" and "regular" usages.
We<br>
thought it simpler "to record what you see, using the<br>
typographical facilities available (MARC character<br>
set) or the LCRI."<br><br>
The revised text reads:<br><br>
"Pre-Modern Forms of Letters<br><br>
In general, transcribe letters as they appear in the<br>
source. However, convert earlier forms of letters and<br>
earlier forms of diacritical marks into their modern<br>
form, as specified herein. If there is any doubt as to<br>
the correct conversion of elements to modern forms,<br>
transcribe them from the source as exactly as<br>
possible. (See also the section on Special Letters,<br>
Diacritical Marks, and Punctuation Marks.)"<br><br>
Kay<br><br>
>>>><br><br>
Sorry, the underlines Kay put in don't translate in<br>
Yahoo. But I think you don't need them.<br><br>
Elizabeth A. Robinson<br>
Team Leader<br>
Rare Book Cataloging Team<br>
Special Materials Cataloging Division<br>
Library of Congress<br><br>
<br>
--- Robert Maxwell <robert_maxwell@byu.edu> wrote:<br><br>
> Going through the latest RDA draft I notice digraphs<br>
> (as in Encyclopaedia Britannica) are used in the<br>
> examples. I asked about it in my comments to the<br>
> draft, don't know if I'll get a response.<br>
> <br>
> Bob<br>
> ________________________________________<br>
> From: dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu<br>
> [dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Richard<br>
> Noble [Richard_Noble@brown.edu]<br>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 8:35 AM<br>
> To: DCRM Revision Group List<br>
> Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Oops on digraphs<br>
> <br>
> Since the default AACR/LCRI/ISBD(A)* standard for<br>
> transcription is "facilities available", and since<br>
> the "MARC 8 character set" is still the industry<br>
> standard for facilities that you ought to have, I<br>
> tried to follow that up myself. I gather that this<br>
> phrase now should be understood to point us to ISO<br>
> Z39.47-1993(R2003). Or maybe not--it's rather<br>
> elusive for a non-techie.<br>
> <br>
> Anyway, has there been any follow-up with LC<br>
> regarding whatever changes in their treatment of<br>
> ligatures/digraphs might have led to the deletion of<br>
> the sentence? (Perhaps no changes, so that the<br>
> sentence was deleted as superfluous?) I note that<br>
> "ligatures" is still in the LCRI index, pointing to<br>
> 1.0E, but I haven't located any use of it other than<br>
> that one, now gone. There is indeed nothing specific<br>
> to "ligatures" in AAACR2.<br>
> <br>
> I wonder if this isn't simply a slough of<br>
> uncertainty on the road from ASCIIville to<br>
> Unicotopia...<br>
> <br>
> RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY<br>
> LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY<br>
> PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-2093 :<br>
> RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU<br>
> <br>
> *Which reads, anent ligatures: "The spelling of<br>
> words taken from the publication is preserved, but<br>
> ligatures and other contemporary forms of letters<br>
> and diacritics may be transcribed in their current<br>
> forms when the contemporary form is not available to<br>
> the cataloguing agency." (ISBD(A) 0.6)<br>
> <br>
> At 12/20/2007 12:14 PM, Deborah Leslie wrote:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> As far as we can discover, AACR2 gives no guidance<br>
> on digraphs. (One of us thought she had found an<br>
> AACR2 instruction to separate all ligatures, but now<br>
> cannot find it and wonders if she imagined it.)<br>
> <br>
> The above excerpt is from a message I wrote to<br>
> DCRM-L on 22 Feb. 2005, the first of a thread<br>
> entitled ?Reconsidering digraphs.? I of course am<br>
> the ?she? referred to and persist in my old tricks.<br>
> <br>
> Richard Noble is right: we are now left with no<br>
> AACR2 or LCRI guidance on what to do with digraphs. <br>
> For DCRM(B), we will use the rules there that<br>
> correspond with the old LCRI. But for modern books?<br>
> I want to tell my cataloger-in-training to separate<br>
> an AE digraph in a Latin word, but on what grounds?<br>
> <br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
________________________________________________________________________<br>
____________<br>
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. <br>
<a href="http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs" eudora="autourl">
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs</a></font></blockquote></body>
</html>