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

[Robert Maxwell]

-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 6:12 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] BYU's 1st RDA/DCRMB record

Thanks, Bob, for this. I have two questions aside from what Erin and
Lenore has raised. 


1. You mentioned that "folio" would have to be spelt out. You use a
"4to" in your record; is that abbreviation allowed in RDA? 

RLM: Only "folio" is changed under RDA. The others remain 4to, etc. I suspect the reasoning is that they are considered symbols, not abbreviations. Perhaps John Attig, who is on this list, can comment on this?


2. Your use of square brackets without supporting note, except obliquely
for the date of publication, is troubling. Is unsupported cataloger
interpolations acceptable? (And, should they be acceptable for us? I
vote no.)

RLM: my mistake, mea culpa maxima! Actually under RDA no notes are required, but under an RDA-ized version of DCRM no doubt we would require them. (I've fixed the record, thanks for pointing it out, although I have to admit the evidence is thin ...) 


3. The RDA 300 is going to pose nightmarish problems for volumes of even
the least complexity. Would there be a rare book reason to depart from
RDA and continue the use of square brackets for unnumbered pages/leaves?

As I opined in my previous post, nightmarish or not, in my opinion there is no rare book reason to depart from a descriptive *convention*. There would be a rare reason to depart from RDA in the matter of exactly what pages/leaves we do count.

I would be interested in hearing from John Attig on this matter as well-why did RDA decide to change the convention for recording unnumbered and misleading pages?

Bob