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

[Noble, Richard]

A "complete package" for labelling would not normally include anything in
5XX or beyond. If inaccuracies in the source are left intact and
uncommnented, and only dealt with in notes, then the unwary (i.e. those who
do not know why they ought to be wary) will produce misleading labels.

Most labels, or citations, for that matter, will stop after 2XX (using m.e.
author, perhaps UT, title, and publication info), which normal people
consider sufficient for correct identification, perhaps expecting that the
catalog is with them in their expectation, not agin 'em.

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 Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Robert Maxwell <robert_maxwell at byu.edu>wrote:

>
> (c) I'm not sure I understand why inclusion of "sic" or "i.e." would create
> a "complete package" for labeling.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20110804/6e18af6e/attachment.htm