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

[Zinkham, Helena]

The "corrected title" phrase sound worth considering.  DCRM(G) may be caught a bit here in trying to stay in synch with the DRCM conventions for transcription while also opening some consistency with the upcoming changes in RDA that offer, in some places, more self-explanatory conventions for catalog users.

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Allison Jai O'Dell
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 2:21 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Eliminating an RDA option in DCRM(G) draft: want to allow "i.e." and "[sic]"

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<mailto: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<tel:%28801%29422-5568>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20110804/68f05b4c/attachment.htm