[DCRM-L] the RDA proposals re expressing pagination

[Bryan, Anna]

This is precisely why I suggested that we poll the users of our records.  From what I have heard in innumerable RDA presentations, the argument is that *patrons* do not understand these statements of extent.  Providing evidence that patrons prefer the information to be bracketed might actually make a difference.  That catalogers prefer them is irrelevant.

As an alternative, may I suggest the following: that we ask for an exception for DCRM(B) cataloging, so instead of

12 unnumbered pages, 72 pages, 10 unnumbered pages, 48 pages, 6 unnumbered pages, 228 pages, 16 unnumbered pages

that we do the following:

"[12], 72, [10], 48, [6], 228, [16] pages *"

*Note "pages", not p. (keeping in the spirit of no abbreviations.)

Than add a note:

"Bracketed numbers in the Description are unnumbered pages."  (I'm using "Description" here because that is how the field is labelled in our public record.)

This has the advantage of keeping with DCRM(B)'s principle of explaining bracketed information that appears in the record.  The note can be easily put into a template and/or a macro.

I frankly have no objection to writing out "colored illustrations" and the like.

Anna Bryan
Senior Cataloger
Rare Materials Section
Library of Congress

I speak only for myself.


From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Karen Attar
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 5:04 AM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] the RDA proposals re expressing pagination

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/20100831/92fd154c/attachment.htm