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

[Elizabeth O'Keefe]

There is still the problem of dealing with resources with unnumbered
pages, leaves, or columns. 3.4.5.3, Single Volume with Unnumbered Pages,
Leaves, or Columns,  makes sense only if pages or leaves are defined in
terms of whether they contain content on both sides (pages) or on one
side only  (leaf), so it fits better with the LC revision of 3.4.5.2. 
If the original version of rule 3.4.5.2  is retained, which relies on
the numbering given in the resource, 3.4.5.3 needs to be revised to
indicate that when a resource is unpaginated, unfoliated, or
uncolumnated (for want of a better word), record the extent in terms of
the unit appropriate to the resource, i.e. if all or most of the leafs
are printed or written on both sides, count the pages, if on one side
only, count the leaves, if in columns, count the columns.

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


>>> "Noble, Richard" <richard_noble at brown.edu> 8/17/2012 11:38 AM >>>
Wow...

First of all, the phrase "as appropriate to the presentation used in
the
resource" is a wordy category confusion that does not bode well.

How about: For a resource consisting of a single volume, record the
extent
in terms of the numbering of pages, leaves, or columns given in the
resource. If the volume is foliated (i.e. if the leaves bear 
successive
numbers on one side only) record the number of leaves, not pages, even
if
the leaves are printed on both sides.

That's what's meant, nicht?

I can't believe what a troublesome mess this is. Who's it for??

RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN
UNIVERSITY
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-3384 :
RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU 


On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:13 AM, John Lancaster <jjlancaster at me.com>
wrote:

> 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**** 
> ** **
>
>
>