[DCRM-L] RDA-acceptable: Indicating misprints

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Not a bad idea, Allison, although "that is" is RDA's language for corrections. It's curious to me that RDA has a mechanism for correcting misleading numbering within the element, but not for misleading dates.

3.4.5.5 Misleading Numbering

If the numbering on the last page, leaf, or column of a sequence does not represent the total number of pages, leaves, or columns in that sequence, let it stand uncorrected unless it gives a completely false impression of the extent of the resource (e.g., when only alternate pages are numbered or when the number on the last page, leaf, or column of the sequence is misprinted).

When correcting misleading numbering, record the numbering as it appears on the last page or leaf followed by that is and the correct number.

EXAMPLE
48, that is, 96 pages
329, that is, 392 pages

Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. | Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare Library
djleslie at folger.edu<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> | 202.675-0369 | www.folger.edu

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Allison Jai O'Dell
Sent: Saturday, 04 August, 2012 11:39
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] RDA-acceptable: Indicating misprints

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20120804/206ed62a/attachment.htm>