[DCRM-L] DCRM2: transcription of punctuation

[Deborah J. Leslie]

I hope everyone is having a good holiday season.

I've finally had time to read and absorb the discussions on this issue; thanks to all of you who have written.

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Lapka, Francis
Sent: Wednesday, 11 December, 2013 09:41
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: [DCRM-L] DCRM2: transcription of punctuation

<...>
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.

[DJL] The question and exclamation marks belong to the element, they do not separate elements. They are necessary to the meaning of the text regardless of whether anything else follows. Contrast periods, colons, and semi-colons used in resources that clearly have no function other than to separate clauses of information, e.g., London: Printed by A. Millar.

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.

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?

[DJL]  There were two primary justifications for this. One is that half-to-quarter spacing is often used internally in roman numerals; it isn't always clear whether a space is present or not. Another is that the use of spaces and punctuation invalidate the ability to search roman numerals as numerals.

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?

[DJL]  As Jane Gillis pointed out, ellipses and square brackets have precise meanings, and are used in the same way by newspapers and other popular media, which is a pretty good argument that these symbols are universally understood by the general public.

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.

[DJL]  I'm glad Francis raised the issue of RDA intentions, which I believe is the key toward moving forward on this issue.

*        RDA's exceptions make it clear that transcribing original punctuation is not meant to recreate exact typography on the resource.

*        The public discussion during RDA's construction is that the default original punctuation instruction is to allow unmediated use of publisher-supplied data, and secondarily of eliminating cataloger fuss.

*        DCRM and its predecessors chose to normalize punctuation and spacing in the catalog record, to render transcriptions readable and possibly to bypass the problems involved in original punctuation; more on this below. Spelling and word order are preserved;  punctuation that separates clauses of information is normalized.

*        DCRM is actually pretty close to the spirit of RDA: use punctuation in such a way as to minimize labor and fuss and make transcriptions readable. On the other hand, prescribing transcription of original punctuation would move DCRM2 significantly farther away from RDA.

*        In addition to the problems of preserving original punctuation between elements in this brave new deconstructed world, think of the additional proofreading and the exponentially greater possibility for error. Anyone who has experience with transcribing original punctuation or with descriptive bibliography will know what I'm talking about.

*        We need more discussion on the distinction between punctuation belonging to the text, that is, punctuation not separating elements (such as apostrophes and exclamation points), and punctuation that organizes the information into meaningful chunks. What follows concerns the latter.

I favor a combination of options 1 and 3. Use RDA 1.7.1 to justify following DCRM, but amend the instructions in DCRM to be neutral about punctuation, leaving it to cataloger judgment. Since rare materials are unlikely to be accompanied by publisher-supplied transcriptions, trying to recreate original punctuation will introduce more labor and fuss, and certainly more possibility for error, not to mention reduced readability. Leaving it to cataloger judgment, both as a process and as a result, follows the spirit of RDA as well as the needs of our constituencies and ourselves.

One suggestion for agencies that commit to faithful transcription of original punctuation: make a note on the fact. That would eliminate uncertainty (by those who care) on the nature of the punctuation within the record.

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20131226/1cb0186a/attachment-0001.html>