[DCRM-L] Full vs abbreviated language in notes

[Will Evans]

I strive for a balance between conciseness and readability (or tell myself
to do so), though I find that I’m trending toward complete sentences.
Ultimately, it depends on what I’m cataloging. Artists’ book are
particularly challenging to the point that I find myself spelling out words
with proscribed abbreviations, such as page and illustration, for the sake
of clarity. Sacrilege I know!



*From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
Behalf Of *Deborah J. Leslie
*Sent:* Thursday, October 27, 2011 6:48 PM
*To:* DCRM Revision Group List
*Subject:* [DCRM-L] Full vs abbreviated language in notes



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 | 202.675-0369 | http://www.folger.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20111028/fd086536/attachment-0001.htm