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

[Robert Maxwell]

This is certainly an issue the DCRM revision group should take into consideration. Meanwhile, I remind you that the new RDA BIBCO Standard Record http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/scs/documents/PCC-RDA-BSR.pdf instructs, under 2.8.2 "For rare materials, generally record all places of publication" and under 2.8.4 "For rare materials, generally record all publishers' names". Although I admit it wasn't the intent when that was written into the BSR, I think that language could cover all places and publishers, i.e., both the fictitious and the real place and publisher. So I think an argument could be made even as the BSR is currently written for a formulation, in rare materials cataloging, such as

264   1 $a Londres [that is, Paris] : $b Per Marthurin Marchant [that is, John Wolfe] ...

I realize those probably don't go together, I'm just stitching together the examples from DCRM(B).

The purpose of the trial period for the BSR was to find issues exactly like this that may have been overlooked when the BSR was being formulated. If the community agrees that this is a problem, we could propose revisions such as this to the BSR at the end of the trial period (which I believe went through the end of this year). Meanwhile I think you are justified going ahead and entering the information in an RDA record as DCRM(B) calls for it, as long as you code the record in 040 both rda and dcrmb.

I haven't consulted with the others, but I'm sure the BSR rare materials TG would be perfectly happy to propose a change to the BSR language for rare materials at 2.8.2, 2.8.4, and 2.8.6 to acount for rare procedures for fictitious publication information if the community and BSC agree, though I'd be interested in hearing discussion about it because, as mentioned, this is also relevant to the DCRM revision group's work.

As you mention, a tweak to MARC could also be proposed, with an indicator for "corrected information". This would satisfy RDA's requirement to make a note (rather than record with the publication information)-RDA never says where the information has to be recorded, so recording this sort of information in 264 with coding making the field for corrected information would be fine. And it would satisfy the display issue you write about, Richard. I think it would also satisfy DCRM's desire to record corrected information, though in a slightly different way from the way we're now instructed to do it. Would you like to write up such a proposal, Richard?

Thanks,
Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 9:31 AM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: [DCRM-L] RDA - Transcription and correction of false imprints

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<mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20121212/fe228ae1/attachment-0001.htm>