[DCRM-L] RDA-acceptable: Indicating misprints

[Allison Jai O'Dell]

One example jumps to mind -- if a particular issue has a misprint, but
other issues of the same edition are corrected or somehow different.  In
this instance, a researcher might be searching under a different phrase for
the title/edition.  (And this sort of a thing is more common in the rare
materials world.)

However, I agree with you that adding a correction for the sake of
indicating that one is transcribing the title accurately is counter to RDA
rules and logic, and is in some ways counter to the spirit of DCRM that
favors exact transcriptions.

Personally, I would prefer corrections to be given either at the end of the
transcribed title, or in an additional title field, so as to maintain the
transcribed title as a phrase.



- Allison



On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Robert Maxwell <robert_maxwell at byu.edu>wrote:

>  There might have been a decisive consensus at that particular gathering
> for wanting to indicate misprints within the element, but has a strong rare
> materials reason for an exception from the general guidelines been
> articulated? I agree that it’s nice to see up front that there’s a
> misprint, but RDA’s stand is taken on the grounds of representation—we
> should be transcribing what is there and not adding stuff to title
> transcriptions. I would have thought that was exactly what the rare
> cataloging community’s stand would be as well, with our emphasis on
> representation. If DCRM is going to take a stand that we should create a
> LESS exact title transcription than RDA (by interpolating stuff like “sic”
> and “i.e.”, much of which is based on cataloger interpretation), we’d
> better have a pretty good justification for it, I think. I’m not seeing it
> just now …****
>
> ** **
>
> Bob****
>
> ** **
>
> Robert L. Maxwell****
>
> Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian****
>
> Genre/Form Authorities Librarian****
>
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library****
>
> Brigham Young University****
>
> Provo, UT 84602****
>
> (801)422-5568 ****
>
> ** **
>
> "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves
> to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Deborah J. Leslie
> *Sent:* Friday, August 03, 2012 5:15 PM
>
> *To:* DCRM Revision Group List
> *Subject:* [DCRM-L] RDA-acceptable: Indicating misprints****
>
>  ** **
>
> 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/20120806/557b5668/attachment.htm>