[DCRM-L] Statement of extent

[Elizabeth O'Keefe]

Erin,

(Bravely venturing on the list)

As you note, estimating the size of a book based on a very complicated
statement of pagination requires lightning arithmetic skills from a
human being. Maybe a computer could do better, but the programming
and/or markup required to support all the possible variants used to
record extent is a daunting task.

Nonetheless, a recent discussion paper on machine-actionable data
elements in RDA chapter 3 proposes doing this. Francis Lapka posted a
message on the list about this paper last month. It can be found at:

http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/jca/ccda/docs/tf-MRData3.pdf 

The paper recommends revising RDA to make extent information
machine-actionable, using an Aspect-Unit-Quantity model. In his comments
on the paper, Francis expressed doubt about whether very complicated
statements could be handled using this method. Other schemes that use
comparable methods for physical description, such as CCO, do not deal
with such involved statements of extent; in fact, CCO instructs someone
recording the physical extent of a manuscript to simply record the total
number of leaves. 

Maybe it's time to recognize that the area is doing too much at once.
It's currently used to:

Record how the resource presents its extent (sort of: there is quite a
bit of normalization and interpolation required). This aids in
identifying a manifestation.

Provide evidence of the number of physical units and subunits in the
resource (but inconsistently: for texts and scores in one volume or
graphics on a single sheet, the physical unit is not recorded). This
helps figure out how thick the resource is (or at least gives an idea)

Provide evidence of the number of intellectual or artistic units (but
inconsistently: 1 drawing or 1 score but not 1 novel or 1 play). This
aids figuring out the extent of the item in terms of content.

Identify object type (but inconsistently: the field is used to identify
the object type of non-books, 1 drawing, 1 sculpture, 1 pair of
slippers, but not 1 printed book). This aids identifying object type
(though not very effectively, since it is buried in the same field used
for page counts)

Maybe the future of extent information will take the form of multiple
extent areas: one area for the count of total units/subunits (physical
and/or intellectual/artistic) and one area to record the details.
(Although this leaves unresolved the question of how the totals will be
arrived at. A mere detail.)

Liz O'Keefe
>>> Erin Blake <EBlake at FOLGER.edu> 8/17/2012 4:13 PM >>>
Just so that Ted doesn’t feel he’s the only one out there, I wanted
to let everyone know that I’ve had several direct messages from people
who have echoed his second paragraph, but don’t want to hint publicly
that, perhaps, the emperor has no clothes.

    -- Erin.

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Ted P Gemberling
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 2:55 PM
To: 'DCRM Revision Group List'
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Statement of extent

Erin,
Here’s a stab at it: maybe it’s because some OPAC’s may not
display notes well, and DCRM wants people to be able to determine
quickly whether the record represents the edition they’re looking
for.

On the other hand, if it’s a multi-volume, DCRM(b) 5B17.2 allows you
to use “3 v.” in the 300 and then spell out the pagination in more
detail in a note. So maybe it makes more sense to say you could keep the
300 simpler for all works, as you’re proposing.

Ted Gemberling
UAB Lister Hill Library
(205)934-2461



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