[DCRM-L] Area 5 comments

Sat Sep 23 16:17:14 MDT 2006

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.

P.93

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

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

"5B1.  General"                                    Should read "General rule" as at 5B15, 5C1 and as typically throughout the document?

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:

                        "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)?

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 ..."

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?                                                            

P.105

"5.C. Illustration"                                  Is singular "illustration" intentional, or is plural "illustrations" intended?

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]

P.106

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

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.]

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)?

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.            

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?

"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].

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 ..."

"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].