[DCRM-L] Statement of extent

[Ted P Gemberling]

Erin,
After I sent that message, I thought of one objection. “3 v.” doesn’t include any inaccuracy, whereas in the example you gave, “766 p.” might give one an inaccurate impression of extent, since someone might read it as saying there are 766 p. in one sequence. Actually, I just noticed that DCRM(b) 5B6.6 does allow you to put 766 p. “in various pagings” and then spell them out in detail in a note “if considered important.” So I wonder if maybe not enough rare book catalogers are using that option.
Ted

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Erin Blake
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 3:14 PM
To: 'DCRM Revision Group List'
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Statement of extent

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> [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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20120818/add00cb3/attachment.htm>