[DCRM-L] DCRM2: transcription of punctuation

[O'Brien, Iris]

In answer to Jane’s question about whether anyone is not including ISBD punctuation in their catalogue records: at the British Library, we follow in-house punctuation guidelines when cataloguing early printed resources, which state that, as far as the transcription of the title is concerned (i.e. 245 MARC field) we only transcribe the punctuation as given on the resource; we don’t include prescribed punctuation. 

(Although, we do replace square brackets on the source with parentheses and we do add an equal sign for parallel titles and a full stop at the end of the field even if this might not be present on the resource).

These guidelines go a long way back but I think one of the reasons for this is that quite often a difference in punctuation on the source can indicate a different setting of text between copies with seemingly the same title and the same extent. If you catalogued the first copy just with prescribed punctuation and later on, you came across the second one with exactly the same title but slightly different punctuation on the source, you probably wouldn’t notice that one of them was a different setting unless you had them both side-by-side and you would probably just add the second copy to the existing bibliographic record without realising that something was amiss.

 

(We use RDA 1.7.1 to justify deviation from the main RDA punctuation guidelines and the use of our in-house punctuation guidelines).

 

Iris 

 

--------------------------------

Iris O'Brien

Early Printed Collections Cataloguing and Processing Manager

The British Library

St Pancras

96 Euston Road

London

NW1 2DB

Tel.: +44 (0)20 7412 7731 

E-mail: iris.o'brien at bl.uk

 

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Gillis, Jane
Sent: 12 December 2013 17:45
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DCRM2: transcription of punctuation

 

But, I don’t think that you can follow RDA and use marks of punctuation as an aspect for identifying a resource.  If RDA had followed the alternative rule in DCRM, where punctuation is transcribed (minus the exceptions), you might be able to use punctuation for this purpose.  But, RDA says you can also add punctuation if the wording/spacing appears to need it (e.g., commas could be added to words at the end of lines).  There are also the problems of ellipses or brackets in a title or imprint.  Ellipses and brackets mean something else.  Is there really something left out of a title or did the 3 dots appear in the title?  Were the brackets printed on the page or is a cataloger adding something?  Also, there is the  issue of hyphens at line endings of early books.  

 

As far as ISBD punctuation, is anyone at this point not including it in cataloged records?  I’m not wedded to ISBD punctuation and think we could leave it off.

 

Jane

 

Jane Gillis

Rare Book Cataloger

Yale University Library

jane.gillis at yale.edu

phone: 203-432-2633

fax: 203-432-4047

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of JOHN C ATTIG
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 10:41 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DCRM2: transcription of punctuation

 

I find it ironic that the current standard for describing rare materials considers that "marks of punctuation are not an aspect of the transcription that can be used to identify a resource," but that the standard for general cataloging at least implies the opposite.

 

I think that Erin has a point, both about the (lack of) justification for deviating from RDA and about the practical benefits of not having to decide how to modify punctuation appearing on the source.

 

On a related issue, has there been any consideration of NOT including ISBD punctuation in DCRM2 descriptions?  Are there external mandates that require that we apply ISBD?  Might this be a good time to reconsider this relationship?

 

    John Attig

    Penn State University

    jxa16 at psu.edu

 

________________________________

	From: "Erin Blake" <EBlake at folger.edu>
	To: "DCRM Users' Group" <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
	Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 10:22:38 AM
	Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DCRM2: transcription of punctuation

	 

	What would the “special collections” reason for deviating from RDA be if we took option 1, though?  Or is the argument that we’re not deviating from RDA, since the alternative says you can use any “published style manual”?

	 

	I guess my main concern is that in my experience, the agonizing happens when catalogers have to think about what to change.  See, for example, the title of http://images.library.yale.edu/walpoleweb/oneitem.asp?imageId=lwlpr19466 <http://images.library.yale.edu/walpoleweb/oneitem.asp?imageId=lwlpr19466> ,  “Fun upon Fun, or the first and second part of Miss Kitty Fisher's Merry thought. No Joke like a True Joke. Come, who'l Fish in my Fishpond?”  It is “wrong” according to DCRM, but would take a lot of agonizing over where to add or omit punctuation, and when to change from upper case to lower case, and vice versa (especially because DCRM explicitly says NOT to add an apostrophe to “Fishers,” since that is the most obvious difference from modern punctuation conventions).

	 

	Thanks,

	 

	Erin.

	 

	----------------
	Erin C. Blake, Ph.D.  |  Interim Head of Collection Information Services and Cataloging; Curator of Art & Special Collections  |  Folger Shakespeare Library  |  201 E. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC, 20009  |  eblake at folger.edu  |  office tel. +1 202-675-0323 <tel:%2B1%20202-675-0323>   |  fax +1 202-675-0328 <tel:%2B1%20202-675-0328>   |  www.folger.edu

	 

	 

	From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Young, Stephen
	Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:19 PM
	To: DCRM Users' Group
	Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DCRM2: transcription of punctuation

	 

	Francis et al.,

	 

	A correction to my previous post.

	 

	I’m in favor of Option 1, based mainly on the first bullet. It is easily understood (unlike the rules in RDA for punctuation), provides wide leeway for cataloger’s judgment and should avoid agonizing over minutiae.

	 

	Stephen R. Young

	Rare Book Team Leader

	Catalog and Metadata Services

	Sterling Memorial Library

	P.O.Box 208240

	New Haven, CT 06520-8240

	Tel.: 203-432-8385

	Email: stephen.young at yale.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

	 

	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.

	 

 


**************************************************************************
Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/
 
The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html
 
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook
 
The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
 
*************************************************************************
 
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmaster at bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.
 
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
 
*************************************************************************
 Think before you print
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20131213/55c49207/attachment-0001.html>