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

[Lenore Rouse]

  I agree with Larry's assessment - realistic and balanced as always. 
Considering the
records I see in OCLC, created according to no standard at all (vendor 
records,
output of some foreign libraries, recon records made without benefit of 
item in hand, etc. etc.)
I am willing to endure the added dissonance of [sic]s and  [i.e.]s which 
at least provide some
reassurance that the cataloger who generated the record was not asleep 
at the wheel.
Unless millions of records are cleaned up and converted to new 
standards, whether
RDA or something different, inconsistencies will remain long after we 
have all died, retired,
or succumbed to carpal tunnel syndrome.

-- 
Lenore M. Rouse
Curator, Rare Books and Special Collections
The Catholic University of America
Room 214, Mullen Library
620 Michigan Avenue N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20064

PHONE: 202 319-5090
E-MAIL: rouse at cua.edu



On 8/4/2011 3:13 PM, Laurence S. Creider wrote:
> 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.
>