[DCRM-L] DPC: minor wording change to 7A1.1 for clarity

[Erin Blake]

Thanks, Stephen! Since area 8 comes up pretty much never in the picture
world, I completely forgot about it. I think your second formulation
does the job best:

7A1.1. Notes qualify and amplify the formal description, and are
especially important for recording types of information not accounted
for in other areas of the description.

I think it needs to be "not accounted for" (or  "not covered by")
because "not included in" isn't quite accurate: lengthy titles are
included in Area 1, for instance.  

   EB.

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Stephen A Skuce
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 1:52 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DPC: minor wording change to 7A1.1 for clarity

 

I agree that this is the way to go. 

But is it a good idea actively to exclude area 8 from this wording?  I
know; area 8 is description's poor relation, particularly in special
materials cataloging, but it just seems odd to exclude a specific ISBD
area from the rule. It makes it seem as if there were a positive reason
for doing so.

Including area 8 might require more cumbersome wording, but it seems odd
to exclude it entirely.

The easiest way to include it would be to revert to the "other areas"
wording, and I don't know how terrible that would be. So I guess I
prefer something closer to earlier iterations:

7A1.1. Notes qualify and amplify the formal description, and are
especially important for recording types of information not included in
other areas of the description.

OR

7A1.1. Notes qualify and amplify the formal description, and are
especially important for recording types of information not accounted
for in other areas of the description.

But I can be swayed.

Stephen

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Zinkham, Helena
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 12:51 PM
To: 'DCRM Revision Group List'
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DPC: minor wording change to 7A1.1 for clarity

 

Looks very good!  (Thanks to all for assistance and patience in
clarifying the wording.) -- Helena

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Ryan Hildebrand
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 12:05 PM
To: 'DCRM Revision Group List'
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DPC: minor wording change to 7A1.1 for clarity

 

This small change makes a big difference, and if a change is to be made,
I think this is the way to go. -Ryan

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 10:32 AM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DPC: minor wording change to 7A1.1 for clarity

 

Yes, I think we're getting to the nub. The only change I might suggest
is to replace "not covered by" with "not included in." Viz., 7A1.1.
Notes qualify and amplify the formal description, and are especially
important for recording types of information not included in areas 1
through 6.

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Erin Blake
Sent: Friday, 27 May, 2011 10:39
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DPC: minor wording change to 7A1.1 for clarity

 

Ahaaaaa... now I think I'm getting it (after talking with Deborah
off-line about this). Notes are especially important for recording
information for which no provision is made elsewhere. It's not that the
rules exclude the information from the other areas, it's that some types
of information have no corresponding ISBD area. There is provision for
recording a lengthy title in Area 1, so although you could also abridge
it in area 1 and put the whole thing in a note, notes aren't especially
important for recording title information. There is no "attributions"
area, or "bibliographic history" area, though, for example, so the note
area is especially important for that type of information. 

New proposed revision:

7A1.1. Notes qualify and amplify the formal description, and are
especially important for recording types of information not covered by
areas 1 through 6.

Thanks,

     EB.

-------------------------------------------------- 
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

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 2:23 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DPC: minor wording change to 7A1.1 for clarity

 

The original text is really quite clumsy, but the problem with the
proposed revisions is that it sounds like rules are doing the excluding.
They are not; catalogers are doing the excluding on the basis of the
rules. Is something like this better?   

7A1.1. Notes qualify and amplify the formal description, and . They are
especially appropriate for recording information not provided for in
that rules exclude from other areas of the description.

 

That is (in case the bold and strikeout gets stripped)

 

7A1.1. Notes qualify and amplify the formal description, and are
especially appropriate for recording information not provided for in
other areas of the description.

 

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Karen Meyer-Roux
Sent: Monday, 23 May, 2011 12:25
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DPC: minor wording change to 7A1.1 for clarity

 

I find Manon's sentences to be the clearest.  Shouldn't the "may" be
omitted though, to keep in line with the more direct meaning of the
original sentence Erin was working on, so as to have the following:  

 

7A1.1. Notes qualify and amplify the formal description. They are
especially appropriate for recording information that rules exclude from
other areas of the description.

Karen

>>> Manon Theroux <manon.theroux at gmail.com> 5/21/2011 9:55 AM >>>
The DCRM(B) sentence is a carryover from DCRB. I never found it
confusing. But, I guess some do? Responding to Lenore's suggested
wording:

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20110527/47383f1f/attachment.htm