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

[Robert Maxwell]

Some thoughts on Richard's thoughts :)

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 2:18 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] BYU's 1st RDA/DCRMB record

Very preliminary thoughts below. My knowledge of RDA is very limited--this has not been the summer for me to spend hours poring over it, though I know it's coming like Hell and high water--but what the heck. - Richard

RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-3384 : RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU<mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>


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]"
As the ranks of well-informed catalogers get thinner and thinner it may be best to let this go. That "[sic]" means you have to know that it's ungrammatical--as for that matter do the expansions. Clearly this is one of the aspects of RDA that appeals to the adminisphere: you need to know the alphabet, but not a heck of a lot else... Anyway, having interpolated a "sic" you need to provide a form of the title for the book to file on properly. I wish there were a field for "primary filing version of the title proper", leaving aside everything having more to do graphic representation.

I agree. The real reason for [sic] and [i.e.] were to prove to the world that *I* the cataloger didn't make the mistake, it was in the item I am copying. But there's no rare reason why the cataloging convention for this should be different for rare or early printed books than for general cataloging. Typos happen on title pages for both kinds of cataloging, and if the general rules say just copy them out without explicitly noting that the mistake was on the source, I don't see any rare materials reason why we catalogers, just because we're rare catalogers, need to declare to the world that WE didn't make the typo.

2.       Physical description (300 field) is treated differently.
The example here is way too simple. What do we do with "[2], iv, [1], iv-xvii, [3], 348 [i.e. 332], [6], 24, [2] p."? Interpolate five repetitions of "unnumbered pages" into that sequence, and you begin to bury the information that you're trying to convey--and that's simple, compared to some things we encounter. This is where I sense that RDA may be wedded to a foolish consistency: "NO brackets! NO abbreviations!" Are they nuts? Are we supposed to abandon every convention of bibliographical description that anyone actually interested in bibliographical description would know perfectly well? Aren't they the people we do this for?

I agree that Richard's example will be a horror under RDA. RDA 3.4.5.5, 3.4.5.8 and 3.4.5.3.1 deal with this. Richard's example would read as follows in RDA:

2 unnumbered pages, iv pages, 1 unnumbered page, iv-xvii pages, 3 unnumbered pages, 348, that is, 332 pages, 6 unnumbered pages, 24 pages, 2 unnumbered pages.

I agree that this RDA result is awful and I don't like it. However, again, there isn't any rare materials reason why the general rule shouldn't be applied to rare materials, and remember that that is one of the principals underlying DCRM (the rare rules won't depart from the general rules unless there is a rare materials reason to do so). "I don't like it" doesn't cut it as a reason for differing. We will no doubt under our rare rules continue to insist that every leaf be counted, which will differ from RDA for rare materials reasons, but there is no rare reason that we can insist on different conventions for counting (e.g. "unnumbered" instead of bracketing) the pages we do choose to count.

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.
There is a for abbreviating: legibility and clarity. Read it aloud to yourself, and imagine that the description actually calls for several such lengthy phrases. Is this a point where we declare that we are no longer limited to the typewriter's capacity for presenting symbols?

As to the formats, I should think that "folio", "quarto", "octavo" do it for spelled out forms. After that it's perfectly correct to write "12mo", "16mo", "18mo", etc., since that's what we usually say. (We can sacrifice "duodecimo", since "twelve-mo" is frequently heard, and shorter. It's just that we don't say "two-mo", "four-mo", etc., even though we could...)

RDA 3.12.1.3 gives instructions for recording the format of the book. The only difference from current practice is spelling out "folio" instead of using "fol." The others are the same as ever (4to, 8vo, 12mo, 16mo, etc.) So the only change DCRM would need to make to follow RDA in the matter of format would be to spell out "folio" which in my opinion is perfectly fine.

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/20100825/3efffa31/attachment.htm