[DCRM-L] Full vs abbreviated language in notes

[Margaret F Nichols]

I'm with you, Deborah; while still trying to keep the notes brief, I'm beginning to feel that the telegraphic style is needlessly cryptic.

Let's see, in traditional note style the previous sentence might read:

Telegraphic note style needlessly cryptic. Cf. Leslie.

Twisted cataloger humor,

Margaret


Margaret F. Nichols
Rare Materials Cataloging Coordinator
Cataloging & Metadata Services in RMC
2B Kroch Library
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853-5302
Tel. (607) 255-3530 * Fax (607) 255-9524
E-mail mnr1 at cornell.edu



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<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> | 202.675-0369 | http://www.folger.edu<http://www.folger.edu/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20111028/26ca6834/attachment-0001.htm