No subject

[Patrick]

Hi all:

I agree with all that Larry says.  Yes, it is
inconsistent to treat date differently from rest of
title/imprint.

The transcription points that Larry makes will need
working out.  Its been my recent practice to use
Arabic numerals when I would have a transcription
problem (e.g., backward C), but this I think is
clearly not desirable.

I also think its important to provide the modern/Araic
equivalent in brackets.

As regards serials, I cannot much comment as I have
cataloged very few serials.  However, if the practice
is to be different for serials than for monographs, I
think a "cataloger change" e.g., from Roman to Arabic,
should be remarked on in a 500 note.

Is this also an issue with other formats, e.g., maps?

Patrick

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dcrb-l at lib.byu.edu
[mailto:owner-dcrb-l at lib.byu.edu]On
Behalf Of Laurence Creider
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 2:50 PM
To: DCRB-L (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Transcribing dates in roman


I think that Deborah's proposal makes a lot of sense. 
I have always felt
that it was strange to be so careful about
transcribing information in 260
subfields a and b, while changing the Roman numerals
to Arabic numerals
with no indication that this has been done.  In
addition to Deborah's
point about distinguishing settings of type, we
already use Roman numerals
when recording incorrect imprints.  A few weeks ago, I
suggested on
another list that one would record An IX as An 9.  In
AACR2 one would do
that, but not, I discovered, with DCRB.  The example
in DCRB, 4D2, second
paragraph An VII, 1798, could conceivably transcribe
An VII, MDCCXCVIII.  
In that case we would have changed one date to Arabic,
but not the other!

The one problem I find with Deborah's proposal is that
transcription of
Roman dates does have fine.  For example, one finds
CI[Backward C]
representing M and there is the question of upper vs.
lower case and large
vs. small caps.  So I think we would want to cover
this sort of issue
somewhere (Maybe 0H?).

	Larry

Laurence S. Creider
Head, General Cataloging Unit
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88011
Work: 505-646-4707
Fax: 505-646-7477
lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu

On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:

> Transcribing Roman Dates
> 
> 
> This was an issue that I'd hoped to put forward
first in the draft of
> the basic principles of rare book cataloging that a
subcommittee is
> working on, but Jane & Juliet are understandably
pressing for the
> resolution of several DCRB issues that keep them
from finishing the
> serials rules. Therefore, I will open for discussion
the issue of
> transcribing roman dates as arabic. 
> 
> Here are the pertinent parts of 4D2 that covers the
transcription of
> dates in roman :
> 
> 		4D2. Roman numerals:
> 
> 		When roman numerals appear as Gregorian or Julian
years,
> change them to arabic numerals unless they are
erroneous or misprinted.
> 
> 		Transcribe years other than Gregorian or Julian as
they
> appear. 
> 
> 		Optionally, if it is considered important to
retain in
> the catalog record the exact expression of the date,
transcribe the date
> as it appears in roman numerals and add the date in
arabic numerals in
> square brackets
> 
> What are we trying to do when we transcribe t.p.
from an item? I put
> forth that we are trying to represent the t.p.
content as it expresses
> itself, and some--although not necessarily all--of
the form.
>  
> A transcription style that tries to represent both
the content and the
> form would be quasi-facsimile transcription.
Standard AACR2
> transcription is a compromise between representing
certain pertinent
> bits of content, but also requires fairly liberal
abbreviation and
> omission. Exact representation of self-expressed
data is not nearly so
> important.
> 
> The justification of more precision and detail in
DCRB is to allow users
> of the catalog to make finer distinctions of
identification in terms of
> the artifact as well as the text. While someone may
not be able to
> reconstruct the t.p. from a DCRB description the way
one might from a
> quasi-fax description, more faithfulness to
representing the content as
> it appears aids in the endeavor of identification.
> 
> This principle is largely assumed throughout the
rules for t.p.
> transcription in DCRB, until it comes to
transcribing the date, that is.
> Typos and archaic spellings are preserved,
transpositions are noted, but
> the date may be silently altered from roman to
arabic in transcription
> with no one (except the cataloger) the wiser. I'm
sure I don't need my
> assurance that sometimes the key to differences in
settings of type are
> titles and imprints that transcribe the same, but
dates which are
> variously in arabic and roman. 
> 
> Nearly everything else about the DCRB transcription
rules are geared
> toward showing up such differences, but the failure
to treat the date
> with the same faithfulness is a failure of the
principle, and an
> obscuring of useful information.
> 
> For these reasons, I propose that the rule be
changed in principle to:
> 
> 		Transcribe the date as it appears.  If the date
appears
> in any form other than the Gregorian calendar in
arabic numerals, add
> the Gregorian date in arabic numerals in square
brackets.
> 
> Please note that I am not at all discussing this in
terms of serials
> rules, and indeed think this issue should be
resolved in terms of
> DCRM(B) only. Once we've resolved it, Jane & Juliet
can take that
> principle and apply it as appropriate to rare
serials cataloging.
> 
> Let the discussion begin.
> 
> __________________
> Deborah J. Leslie
> Head of Cataloging
> Folger Shakespeare Library
> 201 East Capitol St., S.E.
> Washington, D.C. 20003
> 202.675-0369 (p)
> 202.675-0328 (f)
> djleslie at folger.edu
> 
> 



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/