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

[Erin Blake]

It might be simplest if the second boxed alternative (the one about
spacing)  began with the phrase "If a decision has been made to exercise
the alternative transcription rules..." (similar to the way the boxed
alternatives are phrased when it comes to separate bibliographic records
for things that don't normally get separate records).

     EB.

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 10:23 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Roman numerals, punctuation & spacing in DCRM

 

I see the problem-we expect people to read the introduction, where it is
clear that no mixing and matching is allowed, and that any decision to
follow the alternate rule must be maintained throughout the record.
Perhaps the solution is simply to make a reference to the introduction
whenever an alternate rule is given.

__________

Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. | Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare
Library
djleslie at folger.edu <mailto:djleslie at folger.edu>  | 202.675-0369 |
www.folger.edu

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Fletcher, Jain
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 14:29
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: [DCRM-L] Roman numerals, punctuation & spacing in DCRM

 

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/20110715/2188abe8/attachment.htm