[DCRM-L] BYU's 1st RDA/DCRMB record

[Robert Maxwell]

Hello, all-

I've made a stab of RDAizing a DCRMB record. If anyone has any suggestions they would be welcome.

The OCLC master record is AACR2: 558904090

The Institution Record attached to it is RDA: 654560060

If you're not familiar with looking at institution records, go to the master record, and then under the Cataloging menu choose Show, then All Institution Records.

A specific issue came up with this record that would bear discussion:

What  should we do about expansion of abbreviations, contractions, ligatures, etc.? RDA philosophy is "copy exactly what you see," but as we know that is a bit simplistic for early title pages. Some possibilities I see:

1.       Continue to expand abbreviations, etc., exactly as we do now in DCRM(B), including the bracketing conventions (this is what I did in this record)

2.       Expand abbreviations, etc., without bracketing.

3.       Do not expand abbreviations-but what about ligatures, symbols, etc.?

This issue is an issue that has to do with rare materials, and therefore would warrant under our principles a different approach from RDA if we feel it appropriate.

Other RDA changes that do not have anything to do with rare materials (and therefore we would follow the general rules rather than have a special rule in DCRM) that you will note on this record:


1.       In RDA we don't draw attention to errors; so in the AACR2 version the first bit is transcribed "Liber de potestatae [sic] syderu[m]" because it's ungrammatical; in RDA there's no "sic": "Liber de potestatae syderu[m]"

2.       Physical description (300 field) is treated differently.

3.       Addition of content, media, and carrier types

4.       In RDA abbreviation is almost forbidden, so in the signatures note I used "[paragraph mark]" in the RDA record instead of "[par.]". I don't think there's any unique rare reason why we should use an abbreviation here. Related to this, though it doesn't have bearing on this particular book: in RDA the format symbols are the same as in DCRM, except "folio" is spelled out, not abbreviated, e.g. ... 32 cm (folio), not ... 32 cm (fol.) Again, no rare reason why we need to abbreviate this word.

5.       Note the form of the name in 100. The AACR2 form has "cent."; the RDA form has "century".

6.       Note the form of the name in 700. The AACR2 form has "fl."; the RDA form has "active".

7.       The use of relator terms won't be unusual to us, except perhaps using one in 1XX fields. Also none of them are abbreviated in RDA ("editor," not "ed.")

I've added RDA elements to the authority records for the two persons involved, but unfortunately I can't produce them in any way that anyone else can look at them until October 1, when we can begin RDA work in NACO. For the moment they're stored in BYU's online save file.

Comments are welcome; and especially discussion on DCRM-L on the issue of what to do with abbreviations, ligatures, symbols, etc., in transcribed areas under RDA.

Thanks,
Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20100810/d19aefe1/attachment.htm