[DCRM-L] Clarification of leaves and pages (6JSC/LC/21 Clarification of leaves and pages

[John Lancaster]

The revision seems to say that if leaves are printed on both sides, the extent should be given in pages, regardless of how they are numbered.  Which makes no sense.  And why, if we need to be told what pagination and foliation consist of, aren’t we also told how to record column numbers?

Also, do they really mean “e.g.” (= for example) rather than “i.e.” (= that is)?  What other choices are there besides being printed on both sides or on one side?

This revision seems less a clarification than obfuscation.

John Lancaster


On Aug 17, 2012, at 11:04 AM, "Lapka, Francis" <francis.lapka at yale.edu> wrote:

> Subscribers to this list may be interested in a proposal from the Library of Congress to “clarify” the definitions of the terms “leaves” and “pages” in RDA. The proposed revisions are as follows:
>  
>  
>  
> 3.4.5.2  Single Volume With Numbered Pages, Leaves, or Columns
> For a resource consisting of a single volume, record the extent in terms of pages, leaves, or columns as appropriate to the presentation used in the resource, applying the following general guidelines:
> a)      If the volume is paginated (i.e., if there are page numbers on both sides of the leaves e.g., if leaves are printed on both sides), record the number of pages.
> b)      If the volume is foliated (i.e., if there are leaf numbers on only one side of the leaves e.g., if leaves are printed on one side), record the number of leaves.
>  
> [Rest of instruction unchanged]
>  
> Glossary
>  
> Leaf: A subunit of a volume; a single bound or fastened sheet of paper forms a leaf; each leaf consists of two pages, one on each side, either or both of which may be blank.
> Page: A single side of a leaf
>  
>  
> The full text of the LC proposal is available here:
> http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-LC-21.pdf
>  
>  
> Subscribers to the PCC-list may have already read a healthy discussion on this issue at the beginning of the month. Bob Maxwell offered good arguments for why the proposed modification may be detrimental. Liz O’Keefe noted that the proposed definition for leaf would exclude manuscripts that are neither bound nor fastened together. For those not subscribed to the PCC list, a summary of comments is available on the CC:DA wiki:
> http://wikis.ala.org/ccda/index.php/6JSC/LC/21
>  
> CC:DA will soon discuss this proposal in order to formulate an official ALA/CC:DA position ahead of the upcoming meeting of JSC. I will of course be happy to convey the thoughts of the DCRM community to CC:DA.
>  
>  
> Thanks,
> Francis
>  
> (RBMS Liaison to CC:DA)
>  
>  
> _________________________________
> Francis Lapka, Catalog Librarian
> Yale Center for British Art, Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts
> 1080 Chapel Street, PO Box 208280, New Haven, CT  06520
> 203.432.9672    francis.lapka at yale.edu
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20120817/e077bacc/attachment.htm>