[DCRM-L] the RDA proposals re expressing pagination

[Karen Attar]

Dear all, 

 

For a little background, below is the submission made to the RDA
committee from the UK Bibliographic Standards Committee of the CILIP
Rare Books and Special Collections Group, via the CILIP/BL Committee
(its standard channel), at the consultation stage.

 

3.4.5.3: The phraseology '12 unnumbered pages, 72 pages, 10 unnumbered
pages, 48 pages, 6 unnumbered pages, 228 pages, 16 unnumbered pages' is
extremely cumbersome and, we thought, confusing. All members of the BSC
commenting on the rules felt this to be unworkable. We strongly urge:
[12], 72, [10], 48, [6], 228, [16] p. for various reasons:

(1) brief formulae for establishing the number of pages or leaves of
early printed books are well established and easy to understand;

(2) compatibility with major reference sources such as ESTC;

(3) catalogue records for early printed books are frequently long and
wordy, requiring explanations and descriptions (e.g. of copy-specific
information) which are less relevant for modern materials. To have wordy
descriptions where unnecessary discourages the user from seeing the
descriptions further down in the record, i.e. there is a mass of words
instead of the necessary words standing out;

(4) additional cataloguing time is a consideration

 

We were ignored. What did other bodies propose earlier on? Did you,
unlike us, receive any feedback?

 

Best wishes,

Karen 

 

Dr Karen Attar

Rare Books Librarian

Senate House Library, University of London

Senate House

Malet St

London

WC1E 7HU

Tel. 020 7862 8472

 

The University of London is an exempt charity in England and Wales and a
charity registered in Scotland (reg. no. SC041194)

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20100831/05dc3e7e/attachment.htm