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

Thu Aug 4 10:24:04 MDT 2011

Dear all,

The task force Erin mentioned appears in this way in the Bib Standards
minutes for Annual 2011 (from
http://rbms.info/committees/minutes/minutes.shtml#bibliographic_standard
s) :

16. Action plan (All-but-inevitable advent of RDA and its impact on
DCRM) 

Skuce called for the formation of a group to formulate recommendations
regarding RDA's impact on DCRM. Initial volunteers for the task force
were Deborah J. Leslie and Catherine Uecker; John Attig was named as
another potential member. Fletcher recommended that since the RDA
guidelines are going to be rewritten for clarity rather than content,
the task force should synthesize the existing directions using their own
wording rather than quoting directly from the existing guidelines.
Leslie pointed out that since the national libraries will be adopting
RDA in a modified way we don't want to get ahead of practice, but we can
begin establishing general principles and wait on specific
recommendations. Barrett mentioned that OLAC is making suggestions
regarding the rewording of problematic areas; perhaps BSC could also
contribute suggestions for problem areas related to rare materials.

You can be sure that any changes in DCRM practice won't be formulated or
implemented without wide discussion. Speaking for myself and not as a
member of the Task Force, I expect that actual revision of DCRM(B) to
bring it in line with RDA instead of AACR2 is still several years down
the road. The RDA dust has to settle first in the larger cataloging
community, and the rare materials cataloging community will need plenty
of time to assess the fallout and make decisions that best serve the
users of our materials and the users of our catalogs. The task force
just formed will not produce that kind of thorough assessment, but
rather the approach that we want to take now that RDA in some form will
be implemented by the national libraries. (At least that's what I'm
thinking-we don't have a charge yet.) 

Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. | Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare
Library | 201 East Capitol St., S.E. | Washington, D.C. 20003
djleslie at folger.edu <mailto:djleslie at folger.edu>  | 202.675-0369 |
http://www.folger.edu <http://www.folger.edu/>  

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Linda, Oksana
Sent: Thursday, 04 August, 2011 11:42
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Eliminating an RDA option in DCRM(G) draft: want
to allow "i.e." and "[sic]"

Dear Erin:

I would like  to add my support for retaining  the brackets in the
physical description area.

The usage of "i.e." and "[sic]" is extremely important, I can't even
imagine loosing it. 

Thank you,

Oksana. 

______________________

Oksana Katerine Linda

University of Michigan

William L. Clements Library

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.19657 was 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/20110804/6aeacfe8/attachment.htm 