[DCRM-L] DCRM2: transcription of punctuation

Thu Dec 12 10:50:46 MST 2013

I'd be in favor of Option 3. If we're going to make the argument that special collections call for more detailed, precise description than other materials require, then transcribing punctuation as it appears on the source seems more consistent with that principle than the alternatives (as long as there's the option to add punctuation when needed for clarity).

Margaret

___________________________________

Margaret F. Nichols
Rare Materials Cataloging Coordinator
Cataloging & Metadata Services in RMC
2B Kroch Library
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853-5302
Tel. (607) 255-3530 * E-mail mnr1 at cornell.edu

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Lapka, Francis
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:41 PM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: [DCRM-L] DCRM2: transcription of punctuation

As promised, here is the first of four DCRM2 issues for your consideration and feedback. Please note the Options given at the end of summary.

RDA and the current suite of DCRM manuals are partially compatible in matters of transcription, in large part because RDA's guidelines come closer (compared to AACR2) to embodying the principle of "take what you see" on the source.

Nonetheless, there are a number of areas where RDA guidelines for transcription vary from DCRM practice. If DCRM2 maintains significant variations on matters of transcription, the first alternative at RDA 1.7.1 (General Guidelines on Transcription) provides an avenue forward:

The agency creating the data may establish in-house guidelines for capitalization, punctuation, numerals, symbols, abbreviations, etc., or choose a published style manual, etc., as its preferred guide (e.g., The Chicago Manual of Style). In such situations, use those guidelines or that style manual instead of the instructions at 1.7.2-1.7.9 and in the appendices.

This alternative was invoked for the rare materials guidelines in the PCC BIBCO BSR, which instruct the cataloger to use DCRM as the preferred guide. When DCRM2 is issued, it too could be considered "a published style manual" for alternative transcription.

Turning specifically to transcription of punctuation, here are the RDA guidelines, followed by the corresponding DCRM instructions where they vary (in part, at least).

RDA
1.7.3  Punctuation
Transcribe punctuation as it appears on the source except for the following situations:
a) omit punctuation that separates data to be recorded as one element from data to be recorded as a different element
b) omit punctuation that separates data to be recorded as one element from data recorded as a second or subsequent instance of the same element.

EXAMPLE
...and then there were none
What is it?...what is it not?
Vessels on the Northwest coast between Alaska and California -- 1543-1811
I don't do dishes!
DDC 21
Appears on the source with punctuation separating it from the other title information: DDC 21: International perspectives
Vanderbilt University
Appears on source with punctuation separating it from the place of publication: Vanderbilt University, Nashville

Add punctuation, as necessary, for clarity.
EXAMPLE
Travaillez mieux, vivez mieux
Each word of the title appears on a separate line on the source of information

DCRM(B)
0G3.1. General rule. Do not necessarily transcribe punctuation as it appears in the source. Instead, follow modern punctuation conventions, using common sense in deciding whether to include the punctuation, omit it, replace it, or add punctuation not present.
Source:
The unhappy favourite; or, The Earl of Essex. A tragedy. Written by Jno; Banks
Transcription:
The unhappy favourite, or, The Earl of Essex : a tragedy / written by Jno. Banks
Source:
London: Printed for A Millar, over-against Catharine-street in the Strand. M,DCC,LI.
Transcription:
London : Printed for A. Millar, over-against Catharine-Street in the Strand, MDCCLI [1751]
Alternative rule: Transcribe all punctuation as found in the source of information, with the exception of those marks covered in rules 0G3.5-0G3.7. When following this alternative rule, always include prescribed punctuation as well, even if this results in double punctuation. Prescribed punctuation is treated at the beginning of each chapter within these rules.
The unhappy favourite; or, The Earl of Essex. : A tragedy. / Written by Jno; Banks

London: : Printed for A Millar, over-against Catharine-Street in the Strand., M,DCC,LI. [1751]

RDA's instructions ("Transcribe punctuation as it appears on the source ...") approximate DCRM's alternative rule (0G3.1). RDA guidelines, however, say to omit  punctuation that separates data elements, whereas the DCRM alternative instructs to transcribe such marks even if it results in double punctuation.  On this issue, the editorial group is slightly confused by several of the examples given with the RDA guideline. Namely, it's unclear how "What is it? ... what is it not?" and "I don't do dishes!" exemplify the RDA rule. The question mark and the exclamation point do separate data elements, as there are, presumably, additional data elements afterward. From the examples, it seems that RDA only intends that non-terminal punctuation between elements be omitted. Is it stated somewhere that question marks and exclamation points are special cases? The examples don't have one with a period, but it would be unusual to find a period in the resource for most transcribed elements in modern material.

RDA also says to "add punctuation, as necessary, for clarity" (i.e. where visually implied on the resource). A possible DCRM2 treatment of this guideline is provided in Option 2a, below.

For punctuation transcription, DCRM guidelines also treat nuances absent from RDA:

DCRM(B) 0G3.4. Punctuation within roman numerals. Do not transcribe internal marks of punctuation appearing within roman numerals. Omit them without using the mark of omission.

The bye-laws and regulations of the Marine Society, incorporated in MDCCLXXII

RDA (in an alternative) allows for transcription of roman numerals as roman numerals, but makes no exception for omitting internal punctuation therein. Is there a rare materials reason to vary?

DCRM(B) 0G3.5. Ellipses, square brackets, and virgules. Do not transcribe ellipses ... or square brackets [ ] when present in the source; replace them with a dash -- and parentheses ( ) respectively or omit them, as appropriate. Do not confuse a virgule (/) in gothic typefaces with a slash; replace it with a comma or omit it, as appropriate. Make an explanatory note, if considered important.
Source:
Leominster, [Mass.]
Transcription:
Leominster, Mass.
Optional note: On t.p., "Mass." is enclosed by square brackets

DCRM2 should continue to note that a virgule in gothic typefaces ought not be confused with a slash. For ellipses and square brackets, however, is there a rare materials reason to vary from RDA?

0G3.6. Line endings. Do not transcribe a hyphen or other mark of punctuation used to connect a single word divided between two lines; transcribe as a single word, ignoring the punctuation. If the function of the hyphen is in doubt (e.g., if it might form part of a compound word), transcribe it.
Source (showing line endings):
I DISCORSI DI NICO-
LO MACHIAVELLI, SO-
PRA LA PRIMA DECA DI
TITO LIVIO
Transcription:
I discorsi di Nicolo Machiauelli, sopra la prima deca di Tito Liuio

RDA includes no equivalent to 0G3.6. Taken literally, one would transcribe hyphens at line endings; but that is probably not be the intention of RDA. Regardless, DCRM2 will need an instruction on what to do when such line-ending punctuation is encountered, as this occurs frequently in early resources.

For transcription of punctuation in DCRM2, at least three broad options bear consideration:

Option 1: Vary from RDA, following the principles of DCRM's general rule (and employing the alternative at RDA 1.7.1)

*         Pro: DCRM's general rule is unambiguous in its declaration that marks of punctuation are not an aspect of the transcription that can be used to identify a resource.

*         Pro: Application of prescribed ISBD punctuation (which continues, even with RDA, to be the norm) already introduces punctuation not present in the resource. Users hoping to use punctuation marks for identification can't be expected to distinguish between prescribed and transcribed punctuation.

*         Con: Keeping the DCRM general rule would introduce a significant variation from RDA.

*         Con: Application of prescribed (ISBD) punctuation is likely to diminish in coming years. The principles of DCRM2 should not be overly influenced by backward-looking practices.

Option 2: Vary from RDA,  following the principles of DCRM's alternative (and employing the alternative at RDA 1.7.1)

*         Pro: The alternative offers the most complete embodiment of "take what you see," and such transcriptions might better serve the function of identifying a resource.

*         Con: Faithful transcription of punctuation at times results in awkward strings. So long as we continue to use prescribed ISBD punctuation, the alternative requires use of double punctuation, which many users will find confusing.

*         Con: Making the current alternative the DCRM2 norm would introduce a significant break with DCRM tradition (and with the records thus cataloged), since the alternative has been infrequently applied.

Option 2a: Vary from RDA,  following the principles of DCRM's alternative (and employing the alternative at RDA 1.7.1), but use square brackets to supply punctuation implied by the layout of the text. Because adding punctuation implied by the layout really is different from removing or altering existing punctuation, we need to consider another alternative. To clarify, the difference is that because we can't recreate the layout, it's necessary to supply something to convey the intended meaning.

*         Pro: This fulfills the principle of representation.

*         Pro: This differs little from RDA and the DCRM alternative

*         Con: Double punctuation looks odd, and can be confusing (but ISBD punctuation is already omitted in many data presentations)

Option 3: Follow the RDA guidelines, with additional clarifications for special collections

*         Pro: It generally benefits user and cataloger alike for DCRM2 to retain practices compatible with RDA, wherever possible.

*         Pro: The RDA rule makes an attempt to fulfill the principle of representation.

*         Con: For transcribed punctuation, RDA's imperfect fidelity to "take what you see" creates a mixed message about whether or not transcribed marks of punctuation can be used to reliably identify an entity.

We look forward to hearing your thoughts on these options (or others). In an attempt to keep this summary relatively neutral, the opinions of members of the editorial group have not been included, but may be shared in the ensuing discussion.

Thanks,
Francis

_________________________________
Francis Lapka, Catalog Librarian
Yale Center for British Art, Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts
1080 Chapel Street, PO Box 208280, New Haven, CT  06520
203.432.9672    francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>

Please note:  The Study Room is closed due to the Center's refurbishment project, and access to the collections is limited and by appointment only. Requests for materials from Prints and Drawings and Rare Books and Manuscripts should be made at least two weeks in advance by e-mailing ycba.prints at yale.edu<mailto:ycba.prints at yale.edu>. It is expected that normal services in the Study Room will resume in early January 2014.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20131212/35e2bd8a/attachment-0001.html>