<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Garamond;
panose-1:2 2 4 4 3 3 1 1 8 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=WordSection1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Some thoughts on Richard’s thoughts </span><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:#1F497D'>J</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu
[mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Noble, Richard<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, August 25, 2010 2:18 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> DCRM Revision Group List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [DCRM-L] BYU's 1st RDA/DCRMB record<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;
font-family:"Garamond","serif"'>Very preliminary thoughts below. My knowledge
of RDA is very limited--this has not been the summer for me to spend hours
poring over it, though I know it's coming like Hell <i>and</i> high water--but
what the heck. - Richard</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:
12.0pt;margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif"'><br
clear=all>
</span><span style='font-family:"Courier New"'>RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS
CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY<br>
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-3384 : <a
href="mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU" target="_blank">RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU</a>
</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;
margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'>
<div>
<div>
<p style='margin-left:.5in'>1.<span style='font-size:7.0pt'>
</span>In RDA we don’t draw attention to errors; so in the AACR2 version
the first bit is transcribed “Liber de potestatae [sic] syderu[m]”
because it’s ungrammatical; in RDA there’s no “sic”:
“Liber de potestatae syderu[m]”<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>As the ranks of well-informed
catalogers get thinner and thinner it may be best to let this go. That
"[sic]" means you have to know that it's ungrammatical--as for that
matter do the expansions. Clearly this is one of the aspects of RDA that
appeals to the adminisphere: you need to know the alphabet, but not a heck of a
lot else... Anyway, having interpolated a "sic" you need to provide a
form of the title for the book to file on properly. I wish there were a field
for "primary filing version of the title proper", leaving aside
everything having more to do graphic representation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I agree. The real reason for [sic] and [i.e.] were to prove to
the world that *<b>I</b>* the cataloger didn’t make the mistake, it was
in the item I am copying. But there’s no rare reason why the cataloging
convention for this should be different for rare or early printed books than
for general cataloging. Typos happen on title pages for both kinds of
cataloging, and if the general rules say just copy them out without explicitly
noting that the mistake was on the source, I don’t see any rare materials
reason why we catalogers, just because we’re rare catalogers, need to
declare to the world that WE didn’t make the typo.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;
margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'>
<div>
<div>
<p style='margin-left:.5in'>2.<span style='font-size:7.0pt'>
</span>Physical description (300 field) is treated differently.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>The example here is way too simple.
What do we do with "[2], iv, [1], iv-xvii, [3], 348 [i.e. 332], [6], 24,
[2] p."? Interpolate five repetitions of "unnumbered pages" into
that sequence, and you begin to bury the information that you're trying to
convey--and that's simple, compared to some things we encounter. This is where
I sense that RDA may be wedded to a foolish consistency: "NO brackets! NO
abbreviations!" Are they nuts? Are we supposed to abandon every convention
of bibliographical description that anyone actually interested in
bibliographical description would know perfectly well? Aren't they the people
we do this for?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I agree that Richard’s example will be a horror under RDA.
RDA 3.4.5.5, 3.4.5.8 and 3.4.5.3.1 deal with this. Richard’s example
would read as follows in RDA:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>2 unnumbered pages, iv pages, 1 unnumbered page, iv-xvii pages,
3 unnumbered pages, 348, that is, 332 pages, 6 unnumbered pages, 24 pages, 2 unnumbered
pages.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I agree that this RDA result is awful and I don’t like it.
However, again, there isn’t any rare materials reason why the general
rule shouldn’t be applied to rare materials, and remember that that is
one of the principals underlying DCRM (the rare rules won’t depart from
the general rules unless there is a rare materials reason to do so). “I
don’t like it” doesn’t cut it as a reason for differing. We
will no doubt under our rare rules continue to insist that every leaf be
counted, which will differ from RDA for rare materials reasons, but there is no
rare reason that we can insist on different <i>conventions</i> for counting (e.g.
“unnumbered” instead of bracketing) the pages we <i>do</i> choose
to count.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;
margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'>
<div>
<div>
<p style='margin-left:.5in'>4.<span style='font-size:7.0pt'>
</span>In RDA abbreviation is almost forbidden, so in the signatures note I
used “[paragraph mark]” in the RDA record instead of
“[par.]”. I don’t think there’s any unique rare reason
why we should use an abbreviation here. Related to this, though it
doesn’t have bearing on this particular book: in RDA the format symbols
are the same as in DCRM, except “folio” is spelled out, not
abbreviated, e.g. … 32 cm (folio), not … 32 cm (fol.) Again, no
rare reason why we need to abbreviate this word.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>There is a for abbreviating:
legibility and clarity. Read it aloud to yourself, and imagine that the
description actually calls for several such lengthy phrases. Is this a point
where we declare that we are no longer limited to the typewriter's capacity for
presenting symbols?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>As to the formats, I should think
that "folio", "quarto", "octavo" do it for
spelled out forms. After that it's perfectly correct to write "12mo",
"16mo", "18mo", etc., since that's what we usually say. (We
can sacrifice "duodecimo", since "twelve-mo" is frequently
heard, and shorter. It's just that we don't say "two-mo",
"four-mo", etc., even though we could...)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>RDA 3.12.1.3 gives instructions for recording the format of the
book. The only difference from current practice is spelling out “folio”
instead of using “fol.” The others are the same as ever (4to, 8vo,
12mo, 16mo, etc.) So the only change DCRM would need to make to follow RDA in
the matter of format would be to spell out “folio” which in my
opinion is perfectly fine.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Robert L. Maxwell<br>
Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.<br>
6728 Harold B. Lee Library<br>
Brigham Young University<br>
Provo, UT 84602<br>
(801)422-5568<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>