Topic 4. Transcription (revised options)

[Patrick Russell]

Hi all:

YES, I agree with Bob. Not only on transcription, but other issues, such as
handling of local/copy-specific data,  we should stick to MARC method (or a
proposed revision thereof to accommodate a clearly defined need).  By MARC
I also mean what's in the official MARC format, or MARBI proposals, not
additions, variations or options present, often for good practical reason,
in OCLC, RLIN, UTLAS, WLN, whatever (590 being an example, now obsolete
according to MARC format as of March 1994). I don't think that the
committee is in a position to consider the various display/management etc.
problems that depend on local Systems/servers, systems such as NOTIS or
Pathfinder.  

As to discussion of "options for goofy problems," one of the advantages of
publishing "Examples" separately was that it facilitated some discussion of
practical reality apart from a formal LC supported manual of practice (I
have the problem of copy-specific data in mind).

Finally, I think there is a clear preference for using 24X for title
variations.  However, MARC format under 740 has a few examples where a 500
and/or 740 would be appropriate under the present regime. 

Patrick

At 06:06 PM 1/21/99 -0700, Robert L. Maxwell wrote:
>At 04:30 PM 1/21/99 -0800, you wrote:
>>Bob et al.
>>
>>Yes, 246 |i or 500. Some of us have local systems that display the |i kind
>of goofy.
>>
>>--ear
>
>I know, I know--our recently demised and greatly lamented NOTIS system was
>one of these. Possibly we could include a note talking about the goofy
>systems and possible ways to get around them? I think in the document
>itself we should if possible stick to the prescribed MARC method, which is
>no longer to use a 5XX note for this sort of thing, isn't it?
>
>bob
>
>>
>>----------
>>From: 	Robert L. Maxwell[SMTP:robert_maxwell at byu.edu]
>>Sent: 	Thursday, January 21, 1999 4:17 PM
>>To: 	dcrb-l at lib.byu.edu
>>Subject: 	Re: Topic 4. Transcription (revised options)
>>
>>At 03:39 PM 1/21/99 -0800, you wrote:
>>>I've merged the old 1 and 2 options since similar. Questions are
>>surrounded by **. 
>>>
>>>
>>>1. Leave 0H like it is and add a statement to enter a 246 (variant of
>>title) in the manner in which printed (which is what many libraries do
>>already) per rule 7C4 Appendix A, rule 7C4-7C5:
>>>
>>>	EX. 245 10 Advice from a country judge.
>>>	      246 3_ Aduice from a country iudge
>>>
>>>		[Printed as: ADUICE FROM A COUNTRY 		IUDGE]	
>>>
>>>	**Do we need to make a 500 note? -- Title page reads: 	ADUICE FROM A
>>COUNTRY IUDGE.**
>>
>>Just change the 246 part to read:
>>
>>		246 1_ $i Title page reads:$aADUICE FROM A COUNTRY IUDGE
>>
>>No need for a 500 note.
>>
>>>
>>>2. Do a vice versa: 245 as printed and 246 as conversion.
>>>
>>>	EX. 245 10 Aduice from a country iudge.
>>>	      246 3_ Advice from a country judge
>>>
>>>	**Same Q as in 1 above.**
>>
>>In this case, I wouldn't think a note would be necessary.
>>
>>>
>>>3. Follow LCRI 1.0E (note i/j get the consonant/vowel treatment for
>>pre-1801 titles).
>>>
>>>	EX. 245 10 Advice from a country judge.
>>>	      246 3_ Aduice from a country iudge	
>>>
>>>	**Same Q as in 1 above.**
>>
>>Use the same version of 246 as case 1.
>>
>>>
>>>4. Literal transcription of all.
>>>
>>>	EX. 245 10 ADUICE FROM A COUNTRY IUDGE.
>>>	      246 3_ Advice from a country judge
>>>
>>>
>>>From an access point of view, I feel that as long as all possible
>>variations are addressed in 245 and 246, there's not a problem. From a
>>transcription point of view, I'm not sure. If you do not do option 4 (and
>>opt to do upper and lowercase), it seems to me, you are forced to try to
>>understand the printer's pattern to be true to how s/he printed the title
>>in the context of the rest of the text. If we don't opt for option 4, I
>>think we should definitely instruct catalogers to do the note "Title reads
>>as:" at this point (rule 0H) in the code with reference to 7C4 and appendix
>>A, 7C4-7C5.
>>>
>>>Ultimately the point Patrick raises is the main issue: How close should a
>>catalog record come to descriptive bibliography?
>>>
>>>--Elizabeth A. Robinson
>>>  Principal Rare Book Cataloger
>>>  Huntington Library
>>>  erobinson at huntington.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>>Robert L. Maxwell
>>Special Collections and Ancient Languages Cataloger
>>6428 Harold B. Lee Library
>>Brigham Young University
>>Provo, UT 84602
>>(801) 378-5568
>>robert_maxwell at byu.edu
>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>>
>>
>>
>>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Robert L. Maxwell
>Special Collections and Ancient Languages Cataloger
>6428 Harold B. Lee Library
>Brigham Young University
>Provo, UT 84602
>(801) 378-5568
>robert_maxwell at byu.edu
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>