[DCRM-L] Roman numerals, punctuation & spacing in DCRM

[Fletcher, Jain]

Hi, everyone,
   The JTG for DCRM Music received a comment from MLA reviewers that caused us some head-scratching about how-or if-to resolve it, so we thought we would bring it to BSC/DCRM editors:
0G4.1-Judging from the examples, the alternative rule would appear to conflict with 0G3.4, unless the cataloger has already chosen the alternative rule in 0G3.1.  How much mix-and-match is possible with the alternative rules in this section?
   Of course, we RBMS/BSC catalogers are familiar with the premise behind the alternative rules (from Intro. IV, 1st bullet) that they be "used consistently throughout" and so we are aware that no mix-and-match is possible. We are also sure that newer constituencies of rare non-book catalogers would become familiar soon enough with that premise once they start using the DCRMs.  However, this question does seem to have found a little bit of a "referral gap" in the rules, since there is no alt rule given under 0G3.4 (without which, the rule might well appear to be implacable); however, there is what appears to be an anomaly in the rules, because the alt rule under 0G4.1 does allow spacing within roman numerals and also allows for punctuation. Again, it is probably clearest to DCRM veteran catalogers that the alt rule in 0G4.1 invokes the alt rule to 0G3.1, but we can see why it may not be completely clear to newer users of the DCRMs.
   Our concern is based on a scenario that may end up being somewhat more common than not: a cataloger (or a cataloging agency) decides that, for efficiency's sake, none of the more transcription-intense alt rule options will be taken. This means that many catalogers would feel no compunction to read the alt rules as they work, never giving much further thought/attention to the rules in the boxes (even though, as in this case, it is right above on the same page or a few pages earlier). In such a scenario, this means that the rule exceptions given in the first sentence to alt rule 0G3.1 might well have been missed. For such a reason, 0G3.4 would seem implacable to them. Instead, I am wondering if there could be some kind of language in 0G3.4 that not only makes the situation clear but provides a reason to read the alt rule. Something like "front loading" a new phrase to the rule:
 0G3.4 - Unless invoking the option to transcribe all punctuation found in the source (see alternative option to 0G3.1), do not transcribe internal marks ... (etc., etc.)
   Please note that it is only this rule that would seem to be need this exceptional language, for a few reasons: 1) that the two rules directly following the alt rule box only say how to transcribe, not what not to transcribe, and then is followed by three rules that are a part of the exceptions given; and 2) because of the apparent anomaly between 0G3.4 and 0G4.1, as found above by MLA reviewers.
   So what do you think?  Is this enough reason for some (all?) of us to change just a bit of wording?                                                            Thanks, Jain

PS: I considered ending my subject line with "Oh my!", but realized that it would be met with too many groans ("Oh, noooo, not this topic again!") for the allusion to be appreciated...
Jain Fletcher
Principal Cataloger & Head, Technical Services Division
Department of Special Collections
Young Research Library - UCLA Box 951575
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1575
v: (310) 794-4096
f: (310) 206-1864
e: jfletchr at library.ucla.edu<mailto:jfletchr at library.ucla.edu>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20110713/62adef96/attachment.htm