[DCRM-L] Full vs abbreviated language in notes

[Catherine Uecker]

I am in favor of full language in notes for yet another reason.  Working with patrons at the reference desk and in the reading room, I frequently have to "translate" the abbreviated notes to them.  What is very familiar to catalogers looks like a foreign language to a lot of researchers (especially undergraduates).


Catherine Uecker
Rare Books Librarian
Special Collections Research Center
University of Chicago Library
http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/scrc/




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

Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:48:19 -0400
From: "Deborah J. Leslie" <DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu>
Subject: [DCRM-L] Full vs abbreviated language in notes
To: "DCRM Revision Group List" <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Message-ID:
	<8160A9CA17FEBC488A19E00F367FFEDF17B81782 at ARIEL.folger.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I apparently promised the DCRM(MS) group to look up some things and talk
to some DCRM editors about the style of language in the note field, but
figure a discussion in a wider forum would be more interesting. 

 

The more time goes on, the readier I am to use full, normal sentences in
notes, instead of the traditional abbreviated sentence structure that
grew out of the space-saving milieu of the card. Not that I advocate
verbosity or chattiness, but sentences with verbs and articles are so
much easier to read and understand than those without. One also can't
help but think that the RDA no-abbreviation approach will spread to the
idea of not just abbreviating words, but sentences as well. 

 

How about the rest of you? What style do you use when formulating notes?


 

Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. | Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare
Library | 201 East Capitol St., S.E. | Washington, D.C. 20003
djleslie at folger.edu <mailto:djleslie at folger.edu>  | 202.675-0369 |
http://www.folger.edu <http://www.folger.edu/>   

 

*************************************