[DCRM-L] Reconsidering digraphs

[Noble, Richard]

I have to concur with Juliet and Sandy. The working principle should be
"conventionalize only when you have to." This is different from AACR,
which conventionalizes in order to produce conventionalized records: its
general tendency is to minimize the presentation of peculiarities and
particularities. BDRB/DCRB/DCRM exists because those things are deemed
to be relevant to our understanding of the materials and we wish to
maximize their presentation--within the context of shared cataloging,
yes, but with a tendency to get as close as possible to the actual
limits of relatively sophisticated systems.

This is a very broad distinction, granted; but it does reflect my
understanding of our basic "mission" in the DC of RM's, and I think it
works as a touchstone. My colleagues in "regular" cataloguing want to
know how things are the same; I want to know how they're different. They
want things to look normal; I celebrate weirdness (or at least I don't
want to hide it). Etc.


RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN
UNIVERSITY
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-2093 :
RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU


> -----Original Message-----
> From: dcrm-l-admin at lib.byu.edu 
> [mailto:dcrm-l-admin at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Alexandra Mason
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 1:49 AM
> To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
> Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] Reconsidering digraphs
> 
> 
> Although I am now retired I feel that long experience entitles me to 
> express my complete agreement with Manon Theroux and Juliet 
> McLaren. As 
> Juliet writes "the more conventional alterations one makes to 
> the title 
> page, the more difficult identification of a particular work 
> or edition 
> becomes".
> 
> At 17:56 2005/02/22, you wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> >         We long ago agreed, as I recall, that rules should not be
> > dictated by what any particular system was or was not able 
> to do.  Some 
> > systems will treat a digraph search and a separate letter 
> search with 
> > equal efficiency.  But collecting a very large search 
> result is not very 
> > useful if one cannot identify what one has retrieved.  The aim for 
> > searching is surely to identify particular works, and the more 
> > conventional alterations one makes to the title page, the 
> more difficult 
> > identification of a particular work or edition becomes.
> >
> >         I agree with Manon Theroux's comment that any rules which 
> > provide
> > less adequate transcription than AACR2  violate our effort 
> to provide as 
> > much transcription as possible for rare materials.
> >
> >         Juliet McLarlen
> >
> >
> 
>