[DCRM-L] RDA-acceptable: Indicating misprints

[Elizabeth O'Keefe]

I think this is because the extent element is not a transcription field,
and the title and imprint are. I've always assumed that the instruction
to record the extent in terms of the numbering on the item was a matter
of convenience; it would be asking too much to require catalogers to
provide their own count of the pages or leaves, and what appears on the
item generally gives a pretty good impression of the extent of the item.
When it doesn't, then the cataloger may supply a clarification.

Liz O'Keefe

Elizabeth O'Keefe
Director of Collection Information Systems
The Morgan Library & Museum
225 Madison Avenue
New York, NY  10016-3405
 
TEL: 212 590-0380
FAX: 212-768-5680
NET: eokeefe at themorgan.org

Visit CORSAIR, the Library’s comprehensive collections catalog, now
on
the web at
http://corsair.themorgan.org


>>> "Deborah J. Leslie" <DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu> 8/4/2012 12:23 PM >>>
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