[DCRM-L] the RDA proposals re expressing pagination

[Noble, Richard]

I would be disappointed if we had to compromise so far as to bury the facts
about the physical make-up of the complete text block and its appurtenances
in a note. A brief form of description that incorporates that information
for comparative purposes is always desirable for those who can use the
information. If anything, I'd settle for say "908 pages in various pagings
([18], 303, [1], 46, 49-100, [2], 69-232, [2], 79-80, [26], 98, [2],
109-156, 257-993 [i.e. 399], [1] pages)" as an optional parenthetical
addition. (I'm hoping that my arithmetic is correct--I might be able to tot
it up more easily from a proper Bowers-style registration of the pagination,
with the collational formula as a check (pages must equal leaves times 2).

A principle that is foundational to the rare book rules is that the "extent"
must account for all pages of all integral leaves, together with plates,
etc. that conform to ideal copy. RDA's exceptions to this are similar to
AACR, and likewise call for different treatment in DCRM(B). The detailed
register is a result of an assessment of the integrity of the book
(old-timey phrase: "collated & perfect", or C&P for those who can tolerate
abbrev).

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


On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Erin Blake <EBlake at folger.edu> wrote:

>  As a non-cataloger and a provider of reference services, I’ve found the
> statement of extent for rare books accounts for each page very well, using a
> succinct standard formula, BUT it often fails to do something else important
> for many users: letting us know how big the book is.
>
>
>
> When I see “[18], 303, [1], 46, 49-100, [2], 69-232, [2], 79-80, [26], 98,
> [2], 109-156, 257-993 [i.e. 399], [1] p.”  I know that I can easily check it
> against a standard bibliography, but I’d have to get out a calculator and
> use all my fingers to determine how many pages there are.  Is this book
> likely to provide me with a lot of information on the topic, or just a
> little?
>
>
>
> If a revised DCRM(B) ignored the “Early Printed Resources” exception in
> RDA’s “Complicated or Irregular Paging, Etc.” and instead went with standard
> option (a) plus a mandatory note on pagination, I could have my cake and eat
> it, too:
>
>
>
> *Existing RDA text:*
>
> *3.4.5.8.* If the resource has complicated or irregular paging, etc.,
> record the number of pages, leaves, or columns using one of the following
> methods:
>
> a) Record the total number of pages, leaves, or columns (excluding those
> that are blank or contain advertising or other inessential matter) followed
> by in various pagings, in various foliations, or in various numberings, as
> appropriate.
>
>   Example: 1000 pages in various pagings
>
>
>
> *Hypothetical DCRM(B) addition*: always provide pagination in a note.
>
>
>
> The “advertising or other inessential [sic] matter” opens up a can of worms
> (is a half-title essential?) but DCRM(B) 5B5.2. does already say “Make a
> note to indicate the presence of pages that only contain advertisements.”
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>     EB.
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Erin C. Blake, Ph.D.  |  Curator of Art & Special Collections  |  Folger
> Shakespeare Library  |  201 E. Capitol St. SE  | Washington, DC 20003-1004
> |  office tel. (202) 675-0323  |  fax:  (202) 675-0328  |
> eblake at folger.edu  |  www.folger.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20100831/b1fe94e3/attachment.htm