[DCRM-L] Reconsidering digraphs

[Robert Maxwell]

But "conventionalize only when you have to" is not our working
principle. We certainly don't have to conventionalize when it comes to
IJUV, for instance--our systems are perfectly capable of reproducing
exactly the letter forms on the page. For that matter, we don't have to
conventionalize when it comes to changing uppercase to lower. Or
applying capitalization rules once we've changed uppercase to lower. Or
applying punctuation conventions. We don't have to conventionalize when
it comes to transposing parts of the description. There are plenty of
places where we conventionalize even though we don't have to. What makes
this particular case special?

As for other issues that have come up, I'd hate to see our rule hang on
what LCRI happens to say just now (the why should we be "less" faithful
to the original than LC is for 20th century French materials argument)
or dependent on what MARC happens to allow. I'd prefer a more principled
approach. One principle in our transcription seems to be "we separate
ligatures." As far as I can see no one has argued, except in some
Scandinavian languages, that these particular letter combinations are
anything other than ligatures. We don't attempt to transcribe
"faithfully" other ligatures. Why these particular ones? On the other
hand, if the rule is crafted to distinguish between languages where the
form is actually a separate letter (assuming this is really the case)
and other languages where it is nothing more than a ligature, do we
really want catalogers attempting to figure out which it is?

Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568  

>-----Original Message-----
>From: dcrm-l-admin at lib.byu.edu 
>[mailto:dcrm-l-admin at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
>Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 9:05 AM
>To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
>Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] Reconsidering digraphs
>
>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
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> 
>