[DCRM-L] RDA - Transcription and correction of false imprints

[Noble, Richard]

Having just had a first round of RDA training for bib records I was really
scandalized by one thing only, not merely annoyed, as in the case of the
absurd spellings out in the 300. (And I did end up trying to clarify the
case *for *RDA, and the concomitant MARC revisions, from time to time.)

RDA 2.8.2.3 / 2.8.6.3 instruct us to transcribe false or fictitious
publication data as found, without interpolated correction, and to make a
note (per 2.20.7.3) giving the actual place name, etc. This is a clear
violation of what I take to be the whole justification for RDA, its
orientation to database structures as such, which surely would entail
appropriate tagging of correct information. How can we program *any* system
to mine corrected publication information out of the welter of notes?
Furthermore, will we be constrained to follow fictitious place and date in
the MARC fixed field? At that point, we have misplaced and effectively
obscured essential information about a manifestation--so much for FRBR!
Granted, one might use the 752 as a container for information about place,
at least, but that field is so inconsistently applied as to be useless for
comprehensive searching, much less for collocating manifestations by place.
The same applies to access points for actual publishers, printers, etc.
(There is, by the way, no mention of false/fictitious publisher data in RDA
2.8). As for dates ...

The means are to hand in MARC, by way of a repeated 264 field, with a new
first indicator to denote corrected publication info (which could be valid
for all four second indicator values). I'm not sure quite why this is
necessary--brackets are certainly not *verboten* in 260/264, and I don't
think all those "transcribe what you see" instructions evidence great
concern for integrity of data such that the fictitious imprint must remain
pristine in its presentation. (Simplicity of input seems to be the reigning
principle.)

This may not be the exact right forum in which to bring this up, though I
do think it has grave implications for our attempts at bibliographically
respectable records. Where *are* the pressure points for campaigning in
such cases? Can such provisions be directly contradicted by way of a Policy
Statement? And if such a campaign were to fail (though this has the
contours of a hill to die on), could a revised RDA-based DCRM(B) include
provision for getting it right in that context, at least?

RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-3384 : RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20121212/7f95c34a/attachment.htm>