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

[Noble, Richard]

I'd be happy to draft a proposal--can you suggest a model for that literary
genre?

Whether as part of the proposal or as obiter dictum, I'd want to address
the whole issue of false v. corrected publication etc. information at
various points in the record. Where the fixed field is concerned it is
strictly a MARC affair, is that right? In any case, the point to be made is
that *correct* data for these attributes essential to the identification of
a manifestation ought to be given primary status in the database for the
purpose of expressing identity and accurately reporting relationships with
other manifestations. The rules should reflect those priorities, which as I
understand it are fundamental priorities of RDA.

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 Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Robert Maxwell <robert_maxwell at byu.edu>wrote:

>  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.pdfinstructs, 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
> ****
>
> ** **
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20121212/cb9e02fe/attachment.htm>