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

[Laurence S. Creider]

Given the massive amount of existing cataloging that employs [sic] and
[i.e.], the argument from consistency does seems pointless.  In general,
users of catalogers and databases and bibliographic references in
scholarly information constructed according to different citation styles
are probably more tolerant of inconsistencies than we think.  I am not
advocating bibliographic anarchy, but as long as the record is
intelligible we can tolerate some inconsistency.  We will have to live
with some inconsistency in headings in any case as there will inevitably
be some RDA-compliant authority records that end up being used in DCRM(B)
records and vice-versa.

Personally, I like [sic] and [i.e.], but I recognize 1) that I am
comfortable with Latin and therefore a dinosaur and 2) that the insertion
of the terms creates problems in phrase searching.  [Corrected title] (or
its equivalent in the language of the cataloging agency) probably makes as
much sense as anything in today's world.

What I am against is the rush to match up DCRM rules with RDA when RDA has
not been implemented by anything like a majority of US libraries.  I think
that we need to have a few years experience with the impact of RDA before
we can begin to think about how to revise DCRM.  This is particularly the
case when RDA is incomplete, when the language is to be revised before
implementation (this will inevitably lead to some different expressions of
rules and therefore slightly different practices), and when a migration
from MARC will be necessary to fully implement RDA.  I'm not opposed to
any of these things, but I fail to see the need to rush to what will
involve ill-founded judgment.

I realize that some institutions like BYU may be implementing RDA before
the rest of the cataloging community (or more accurately continuing to
employ the current version of RDA after the end of the testing period),
but I think that perhaps they need to live with using two different codes
while cataloging.   I know that I did for a number of years when I
cataloged contemporary materials using AACR2 and older materials using
DCRB.  It is possible and not even particularly difficult.

To be honest, I would prefer it if DCRM(G) avoided any attempt to
incorporate RDA into this edition.

-- 
Laurence S. Creider
Special Collections Librarian
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 575-646-7227
Fax: 575-646-7477
lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu

On Thu, August 4, 2011 12:20 pm, Allison Jai O'Dell wrote:
> To follow up on Bob's comments:  Records for most rare materials live in
> shared catalogs with 'regular' materials, and if user convenience is
> really
> at the heart of this discussion, then consistency in formatting and
> display
> should remain a priority.
>
> Another question to consider is how much "i.e." conveys to the average end
> user.  Does he/she understand that the title given in brackets is the
> 'correct' one?  At the very least, I would advocate for "Royal Palace,
> Warsaw [corrected title: Kremlin Palace, Moscow]" over "i.e."
>
>
> - Allison Jai O'Dell
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Robert Maxwell
> <robert_maxwell at byu.edu>wrote:
>
>> (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
>>
>