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

[Robert Maxwell]

(a) "Quality assurance" is not the same thing as "precise representation." "[sic]" and "[i.e. ...]" are ways we catalogers leave behind the message "Hey, folks, the mistake was in the original--it wasn't ME that made it! Don't blame me!" The desire to do that is understandable, but the same desire is there among catalogers of all sorts, not just rare materials catalogers. I don't see that there's a rare cataloging reason to differ. 

(b) Unintentionally incorrect information no doubt abounds in all graphic materials, not just rare graphic materials. Again, I don't see a rare cataloging reason for the standard to differ.

(c) I'm not sure I understand why inclusion of "sic" or "i.e." would create a "complete package" for labeling.

Much as I, too, like to make sure people don't think *I* would ever make a typo in my transcription and so also miss the ability to use "sic" or "i.e." in RDA, I just don't think there's any rare cataloging reason why we should differ here.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568
________________________________________
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Erin Blake [EBlake at FOLGER.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 7:31 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