[DCRM-L] Eliminating an RDA option in DCRM(G) draft: want to allow "i.e." and "[sic]"

[Will Evans]

Personally, I applaud the idea of retaining “i.e.” and “[sic]” for the
reasons you have outline and others, not the least of which is human error
in creating records (note to self). I find reassurance in seeing a [sic] in
a record, as it is an indicator that careful attention was paid in its
creation, and as is often the case, that the item I have in hand is indeed a
variant. Moreover, I’d like to add my support of maintaining brackets around
unnumbered pages/leaves in the physical description area. I would argue that
like graphic materials, books, especially those of a certain vintage, are
often not “self describing,” and that these indicators are vital tools for
identification.



Best,



Will





*From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
Behalf Of *Erin Blake
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 03, 2011 9:32 PM
*To:* dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
*Subject:* [DCRM-L] Eliminating an RDA option in DCRM(G) draft: want to
allow "i.e." and "[sic]"



As you may know, the DCRM(G) draft incorporates some boxed "RDA
alternatives" in cases where standard RDA convention differs from AACR2
(e.g. "RDA alternative: Use 'diameter' instead of the abbreviation 'diam.'")
and there are no rare materials or graphic materials reasons to differ (as
suggested by Barbara Tillett and others, and approved in principle by the
RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee, in order for DCRM(G) to be a
transitional manual).



In the draft reviewed for the public hearing, we included the RDA
alternative "Do not follow inaccuracies with '[sic]' or 'i.e.' and the
correction in square brackets. Instead, make a note correcting the
inaccuracy (RDA 1.7.9)." HOWEVER, further work has convinced us we DO need
"[sic]" and "i.e." in transcriptions, for various reasons, including:



a) "Precise representation" (DCRM III.2.2.) is key for sophisticated special
collections users  and "i.e." and "[sic]" provide quality-assurance that the
representation is precise



b) Unintentionally incorrect information is not infrequent in graphic
materials, which are not "self describing" the way books with title pages
are, and such inaccuracies need immediate correction in order to make sense
to users. For example, the image at
http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ggbain.19657was wrongly titled "Royal
Palace, Warsaw" by the news agency that created
it; it actually depicts the Kremlin, so its title according to DCRM(G)
should be "Royal Palace, Warsaw [i.e. Kremlin Palace, Moscow]"



c) Title and imprint information commonly get pulled out for image databases
and picture captioning, so we need a complete package in those areas; moving
corrections to the notes splits information that needs to stay assembled for
user convenience



Thoughts? Comments?



Many thanks,



   Erin (Chair, DCRM(G) Editorial Team)



--------------------------------------------------

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/20110804/e47ed0f7/attachment.htm