[DCRM-L] RDA-acceptable: Indicating misprints

[Allison Jai O'Dell]

I like your inclination here, Deborah.

But why not stick with the existing RDA language?  Instead of "[that is,
...]"  use "[should read ...]" immediately following the misprint, or
perhaps, "[Title should read: ....]" at the end of the title field?



Best,
Allison



On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu>wrote:

>  I’ve been thinking about how to indicate misprints in an RDA-acceptable
> way for DCRM. There was a decisive consensus during the preconference
> discussion session that it was imperative for us to be able to indicate a
> misprint within the element. ****
>
> ** **
>
> We could continue our current way of doing this, via  “[sic]” and
> “[i.e.]”, but I’d rather we found a way to comply with the spirit of RDA by
> eschewing Latin words and abbreviations. “Sic” is problematic, since it’s
> technical meaning is “thus” and has been used to indicate not only
> misprints but pre-modern but acceptable spellings, and in some cases, even
> the absence of a period after an abbreviation: London : Printed by Tho
> [sic] Cotes,
> http://shakespeare.folger.edu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?BBID=97497****
>
> ** **
>
> I’ve been experimenting with using “[that is, … ]” to give correct
> readings of all misprints and false imprints, and just bracketed insertions
> for missing words. Please see the attached for some early explorations.
> Please pay particular attention to items 8, 11, & 12. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Deborah****
>
> ** **
>
> Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. | Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare
> Library****
>
> djleslie at folger.edu | 202.675-0369 | www.folger.edu****
>
> ** **
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20120804/0d3a6839/attachment.htm>