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

[Noble, Richard]

Helena could well have italicized and bolded her apt reference to the
implications of cataloging rules for metadata in general (the whole point of
RDA, if I understand its defenders' arguments correctly). If catalogers are
to be conceived as front-line creators of metadata, then their work should
anticipate the conditions under which it will be used; e.g *many pictures
are harvested for use in specialized databases with just a few pieces of
metadata attached (not the full catalog record). Which is basically what I
meant in my own response regarding the areas and elements that are likely
and especially not likely to be harvested from MARC or MARC-like metadata
for such purposes. Without correction of some sort, a 245 may be nothing
better than uncritically transcribed garbage in that produces garbage out. *
*
*
I would further remark that this is not a format-specific condition.

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 6:50 PM, Zinkham, Helena <hzin at loc.gov> wrote:

> Quick clarification: The DCRM(G) interest in having a transcribed and
> corrected title appear together in the same title element has nothing to do
> with protecting catalogers' reputations by pointing out 'who made a
> mistake.' Nothing.
>
> Nor is the question being raised with an eye towards consistency of
> practice over time "within" a library catalog.  Quite the opposite--the
> concern is about what happens when picture titles are taken out of the
> catalog context and separated from the notes. This separation happens
> frequently because single pictures are often reproduced in book
> illustrations, Web pages, and lectures; or, many pictures are harvested for
> use in specialized databases with just a few pieces of metadata attached
> (not the full catalog record).
>
> We're looking for a way to alert catalog users when a title has totally
> misleading information. We're trying to reduce the chances that, for
> example, a picture showing Russia is used to represent Poland.  True, we
> don't always know when a picture has an inaccurate title. But when we do, it
> seems useful to make it easy to recognize the real subject matter. That's
> the "complete package" -- keep the transcribed and the devised corrected
> title side by side, so that they travel together when pulled out of the
> library catalog.
>
> Is this a rare materials issue? I believe so, in that the inaccurate title
> issue surfaces most often among historical, limited distribution, and
> unpublished pictures. But it might primarily be a "graphic materials"
> issue--the frequency of "wholly inaccurate" titles might well be higher
> among pictures than other information resources.
>
> Helena Zinkham
> Prints & Photographs Division
> Library of Congress
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
> Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 1:59 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]"
>
> (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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20110805/b4863944/attachment.htm