[DCRM-L] Area 5 comments

Sun Oct 8 12:28:35 MDT 2006

Thanks, Joseph. Good work! 

Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
Chair, RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee
http://www.folger.edu/bsc/index.html
Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare Library
201 East Capitol St., S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003
djleslie at folger.edu || 202.675-0369 || http://www.folger.edu 

	-----Original Message-----
	From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
[mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Joseph Ripp
	Sent: 23 September 2006 18:17
	To: DCRM Revision Group List; DCRM Revision Group List
	Subject: [DCRM-L] Area 5 comments

	Area 5 comments:

	Submitted:
J. Ripp

	September 23, 2006

jripp at lib.siu.edu <mailto:jripp at lib.siu.edu> 

1.618.453.3269

	Original text in black, comments in blue. [DJL] we lost your
color scheme somewhere along the way, but I don't think there is any
ambiguity. 

	P.93

	"5A1.  Prescribed punctuation"             Should be boldface?
[noted by David][DJL]  done

	"5A2. Sources of information"               Should be boldface?
[noted by David][DJL]  done

	"5B1.  General"         Should read "General rule" as at 5B15,
5C1 and as typically throughout the document?[DJL] You are probably
right. Changed.

	P.96

	5B5.1               "are included in the same pagination
sequence as the text;

	"or       are printed on the pages of an initial or final
gathering also containing "leaves or pages of text;

	 "or       are printed on a separate gathering in a publication
that is continuously signed."

	 I have two questions about the formatting of this rule.  First,
should "leaves or pages of text;" and "signed" be tabulated in to appear
flush with the preceding lines of text, or are they meant to align with
the word "or?"  It will be easier to convey my meaning visually.  I
wonder if what follows is what the editors desire:[DJL]  Fixed. The main
part of the text for all three conditions should align, with the two
"or's" flush left. 

	                         "are included in the same pagination
sequence as the text;

	            "or       are printed on the pages of an initial or
final gathering also containing leaves or pages of text;

	 "or       are printed on a separate gathering in a publication
that is continuously signed."

	 And the second question is whether these options should be set
off with letters a), b), and c)?[DJL]  I'll consider this as part of the
more comprehensive query submitted by David Woodruff

	For both queries, I cite the formatting of 1E8 as an analog if
not as a precise equivalence.  I did not find many other instances of
such "or" statements by scanning the .pdf document, so I am unsure of
the editors' intentions.  (Probably the area 7 people have already
brought this to your attention, but the formatting also differs at 7B9.3
where "or" is indented from the left margin by one <tab>).

	 P.97

	5B6.1  "If the numbering within a sequence changes ..."

Suggestion to insert "style of" after "If?" to read:

	            "If the style of numbering within a sequence changes
..."
[DJL] Your suggestion is sound. This follows the wording of AACR2, and
Intro 3.2.5 has this to say: "DCRM text is modeled on AACR2 text
(substituting examples drawn from rare materials for illustration). In
cases where the language of AACR2 is not precise enough to convey
necessary distinctions or may introduce confusion when dealing with rare
materials, DCRM uses carefully considered alternative wording. Wording
of relevant ISBD(A) standards was also considered when deviating from
AACR2.)" I would argue that the AACR2 wording "If the numbering within a
sequence changes" is not precise enough and could lead to ambiguity,
because it is only referring to cases when the sequence is continuous
but the style changes, not to cases when the numbering itself changes. I
propose changing it as Joseph suggests. Comments? 

	P.98

	5B6.6  [alternative options marked a), b), and c)]

	This formatting is attractive and logical, but once again,
should be compared to 0C2 and 1E8 to confirm editors' intentions.  Also,
should include "or" between options? [DJL] To be considered as part of
larger issue.                                                  

	P.105

	"5.C. Illustration"  Is singular "illustration" intentional, or
is plural "illustrations" intended?[DJL]  I presume it's intentional.
DCRB uses this wording, although AACR2 does not, nor does ISBD(A). I
like it in the singular because of its suggestion that the presence of
illustration is a condition to be recorded, rather than countable items
which could be confused with what needs to go in 300$a. 

	5C1.1 "To indicate presence of illustration use the abbreviation
..."
	Is singular "illustration intended, or is plural "illustrations"
intended? 

	5.C1.2  "Optionally, ..."                       Should be
italicized  [already noted by Arvid][DJL]  Fixed.

	P.106
	5C2.1  "Optionally, ..."                        Should be
italicized  [already noted by Arvid][DJL]  Fixed

	5C2.2 and 5C2.3                                 It seems that
these two rules will be followed only if the optional 5C2.1 is followed.
They might consequently be viewed as subrules to 5C2.1.  But as the
rules now read, it could be assumed that 5C2.2 and 5C2.3 are independent
rules, mandated in all cases.  But where 5C2.2 can potentially stand
independently as a mandated rule, 5C2.3 only really makes sense if the
optional 5C2.1 is followed. [5C5 seems to indicate that 5C2.2 is
mandated in all cases - is this in fact the intended meaning?  See also
note to 5C5 on p.107 below.][DJL]  Good catch. I agree that 5C2.2 and
5C2.3 are logical subrules to 5C2.1. I am reluctant to chance them,
however, since we only went to five places in rule numbering when our
backs were against the wall. Let me check with the editors, though; 

	5C generally                                         This issue
is not significant, but I thought to mention it for the sake of
thoroughness.  It involves the use of abbreviations.  5C1.1 dictates
that the cataloger "use the abbreviation 'ill.'" and 5C3 dictates that
the cataloger "describe color illustrations as such using the
abbreviation 'col.'"  The value of simply telling the cataloger to use
"ill." or "col." rather than expecting that she will find these
abbreviations in AACR2 is apparent, but this does result in a minor
inconsistency.  The optional rule 5C2.1 regarding the specification of
"particular types of illustrations," meanwhile, refers the cataloger to
the list of "abbreviations appearing in AACR2, Appendix B" when
abbreviating facsims., geneal. tables, ports., etc.  A brief search
through the entire document reveals this as one of only two references
to Appendix 2 (the other is 4B4).  Would it be simpler to incorporate
these abbreviations into the text of DCRM(B)?

	[DJL]  I don't see a problem with doing this, and you're right
that it would be easier, given that there are a finite number of
abbreviations under consideration. The two ways of doing this that occur
to me are. I have a slight preference for the first, even though we
don't abbreviate elsewhere in rule text. Any other suggestions more than
welcome, both about whether we should do this, and how to make it more
elegant. 

		5C2.1. Optionally, specify particular types of
illustrations. Use in alphabetical order one or more such terms as the
following: coats of arms, diagrams, facsims.,  forms, geneal. tables,
maps, music, plans, ports. (use for single or group portraits), samples.

		Or
		5C2.1. Optionally, specify particular types of
illustrations. Use in alphabetical order the abbreviations authorized
from AACR2 Appendix B (given in parentheses), if any, for one or more
such terms as the following: coats of arms, diagrams, facsimiles
(facsims.), forms, genealogical tables (geneal. tables), maps, music,
plans, portraits (ports.) use for single or group portraits), samples. 

	P.107 

	5C5  "When the illustrations are all or chiefly of one type (see
5C2.2), use the name of the type instead of 'ill.'"

	Does this indicate that 5C2.2 is not to be considered optional?
Or if 5C2.2 is optional, then this provision should also be considered
optional.            [DJL] Yep, it should. I added "Optionally" to the
beginning of the second sentence. I also noticed, while I was at it,
that the first sentence, carried over from DCRB, was awkward/misleading
by suggesting that we account for the illustrations rather than account
for the condition of the volume as all or chiefly illustrated. 
	Original: If a publication consists entirely or chiefly of
illustrations, account for them with "all ill." or "chiefly ill." When
the illustrations are all or chiefly of one type (see 5C2.2), use the
name of the type instead of "ill."

	Changed to: If a publication consists entirely or chiefly of
illustrations, account for this fact by specifying "all ill." or
"chiefly ill." Optionally, when the illustrations are all or chiefly of
one type (see 5C2.2), use the name of the type instead of "ill."

	 P.108

	 5D1.  Height and format"   Is reiteration of "5D. Size and
format" intended, or should this read "General rule" as at 5B15, 5C1 and
elsewhere throughout the document? [DJL] Yes, I believe so; changed

	"5D2"      Elsewhere in area 5, rules at this hierarchical level
are subtitled and set off with line breaks from the text of the rule
(Cf. "5B4 Errata leaves", "5B10 Folded leaves," "5B11. Double leaves,"
"5B12. Incomplete publications," "5B13.  Sheets, rolls, cases,
portfolios, etc.," "5B16. "Bibliographic volumes vs. physical volumes,"
"5B18. Pagination not continuous," "5B19. Leaves and pages of plates,"
"5C4.  Number of illustrations," and "5C5. Publications consisting
entirely or chiefly of illustrations," rules that are similarly
unsubdivided, but are still subtitled and set off with line breaks from
the text of the rule.  [See also 5D3 and 5E2 below]. [DJL] Yes, not just
in Area 5 but throughout the document. Changed captions

	5D2. Width
	5D3. Differing sizes
	5E2. Issued in pocket

	 P.109 

	 "5D3"     Elsewhere in area 5, rules at this hierarchical level
are subtitled and set off with line breaks from the text of the rule
(Cf. "5B4 Errata leaves", "5B10 Folded leaves," "5B11. Double leaves,"
"5B12. Incomplete publications," "5B13.  Sheets, rolls, cases,
portfolios, etc.," "5B16. "Bibliographic volumes vs. physical volumes,"
"5B18. Pagination not continuous," "5B19. Leaves and pages of plates,"
"5C4.  Number of illustrations," and "5C5. Publications consisting
entirely or chiefly of illustrations," rules that are similarly
unsubdivided, but are still subtitled and set off with line breaks from
the text of the rule.  [See also 5D2 above and 5E2 below].

	 5E1.2  "or describe the accompanying ..."

	           Elsewhere in area 5 (Cf. 5B5.1, 5B7.2, 5.B18), in
such optional statements beginning "or ...", there appears to be a <tab>
stroke (9mm) following the word "or ," whereas here the text follows the
word "or" without the insertion of a <tab>.  Does the following
formatting better reflect the editor's intentions:

	 "or       describe the accompanying ..." 
	[DJL] Reformatted 5E1.2 so that each "or" is in italics and
stands flush left followed by a tab.

	"5E2"
Elsewhere in area 5, rules at this hierarchical level are subtitled and
set off with line breaks from the text of the rule (Cf. "5B4 Errata
leaves", "5B10 Folded leaves," "5B11. Double leaves," "5B12. Incomplete
publications," "5B13.  Sheets, rolls, cases, portfolios, etc.," "5B16.
"Bibliographic volumes vs. physical volumes," "5B18. Pagination not
continuous," "5B19. Leaves and pages of plates," "5C4.  Number of
illustrations," and "5C5. Publications consisting entirely or chiefly of
illustrations," rules that are similarly unsubdivided, but are still
subtitled and set off with line breaks from the text of the rule.  [See
also 5D2 and 5D3 above].

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20061008/421e1f67/attachment.htm 