[DCRM-L] Full vs abbreviated language in notes

[Laurence S. Creider]

FWIW, My notes are certainly more complete and less cryptic than they
were.  I am very cautious about abbreviations because reading 19th century
footnotes has made me realize how difficult abbreviations can be to figure
out after a few years.  On the other hand, conciseness is important
because very long records can overwhelm users, including me.  You are
probably right, Deborah, about the effect of RDA's rejection of most
abbreviations.

Larry
-- 
Laurence S. Creider
Interim Head
Archives and Special Collections Dept.
University Library
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 575-646-4756
Fax: 575-646-7477
lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu

On Thu, October 27, 2011 4:48 pm, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:
> 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/>
>
>
>
>