[DCRM-L] RDA 3.4.5.3 ... how to count unnumbered pages

Mon Jan 21 10:15:58 MST 2013

Included in the recent LC proposal for the revision of RDA instructions on extent (“clarification of leaves and pages”) was a new set of guidelines on how to describe volumes consisting entirely of unnumbered pages. Here is the pertinent section, as accepted by JSC at its November meeting:

3.4.5.3 Single Volume With Unnumbered Pages, Leaves, or Columns
            […]
                        c) Record 1 volume (unpaged).
                        EXAMPLE
                        1 volume (unpaged)
            When recording the number or estimated number of unnumbered pages or leaves, apply these guidelines:
                        a) If the leaves are printed or written on both sides, record the numbering in terms of pages.
                        b) If the leaves are printed or written on one side, record the numbering in terms of leaves.

Several people have since suggested that it would be useful to add further guidelines on *how* to record the number of unnumbered pages or leaves. In DCRM(B), this is addressed in rule 5B8.1 (“Begin the count … ”:
5B8.1.
If the whole volume is unpaginated or unfoliated, count the pages or leaves and record the total in arabic numerals within square brackets. State the total in terms of pages or leaves, but not of both. Begin the count with the first page or leaf of the first gathering<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=dcrmbGatheringSLASHglossary&hash=GatheringSLASHglossary> and end the count with the last page or leaf of the last gathering<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=dcrmbGatheringSLASHglossary&hash=GatheringSLASHglossary>, as instructed in 5B3<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=dcrmb5B3&hash=5B3>. Count all blank pages or leaves.

For non-rare materials, one might (traditionally) instruct the cataloger to begin with the first page that has printing on it and count until the last page that has printing on it.

Would our community be interested in submitting a revision proposal for this element? If so, would it make sense to offer a general instruction for non-rare materials and an exception for early printed resources?

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>

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Lapka, Francis
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 12:49 PM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Cc: Rolla, Peter (Peter_Rolla at hms.harvard.edu); robert_maxwell at byu.edu
Subject: [DCRM-L] FW: 6JSC/LC/21

John Attig sends an update from the current JSC meeting regarding LC proposal 21 (“Clarification of leaves and pages”). As John notes, LC has substantially revised the proposal. I attach the initial and new versions herewith.

I also attach a second version of the new proposal, into which I insert some quick initial thoughts (in tracked comments).

Also note the three examples John names in his message below. Applying RDA rules alone (without DCRMB), I believe the revised proposal would allow us to record extent as follows:

·         Case 1: “8 pages”

·         Case 2: “7 pages, 1 unnumbered page” [applying the exception for early printed resources at RDA 3.4.5.3.1]

·         Case 3:  “4 leaves” [applying 3.22.2.11 instead of 3.4.5.5]

As John suggests, I’m more inclined to support this revision. I’d like to hear the thoughts of others on this list.

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>

From: JOHN C ATTIG [mailto:jxa16 at psu.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 11:24 PM
To: Kathy Glennan (kglennan at umd.edu<mailto:kglennan at umd.edu>); Robert Maxwell; Lapka, Francis
Cc: Peter Rolla
Subject: 6JSC/LC/21

LC presented a new proposal dealing with "leaves" and "pages".  Everyone except ALA agreed to it; I said I needed time to consult.  You three seem to have been the main contributors to ALA's discussion (although Kathy mostly contributed by posting comments from other people).

I'd like your reactions to this before the end of the week, if at all possible.  My sense is that ALA should agree unless there are really serious problems here.

Kate James presented the new proposal; it was accompanied by three visual aids, each representing one of the case they felt were at issue.  All three were 8-page "volumes"; in each case, the leaves were printed on both sides (i.e., each page contained text).

In the first case, each page was contained a number: 1-8.

In the second case, each page was counted in the numbering but only the odd-numbers were printed on the rectos: 1, 3, 5, 7.

In the third case, only the leaves were numbered: 1-4.

I think that the LC revision (attached) was designed to deal with these three cases.  In the third case, this was considered to be an example of misleading numbering and they propose a reference to 3.4.5.5 for this.  I think that the first two cases are all covered by their proposed instruction a) -- in other words, both would be considered examples of a volume numbered in terms of pages and the extent would be recorded as n pages -- although in the second case, I think you would end up with "7 pages" and in the first case with "8 pages" -- which seems a bit strange.

It was noted that the Exception for early printed books is not affected in any way by this revision.

The proposal also contains additional instructions in 3.4.5.3 that say when to use "pages" and when to use "leaves" when recording unnumbered volumes or sequences.

Comments?  Is this something we can live with?  As I said, I think we ought to support this revision unless we see some really serious problems with it.

        John

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20130121/5fce3b51/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 6JSC-LC-21 new proposal_with-FL-comments.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 68608 bytes
Desc: 6JSC-LC-21 new proposal_with-FL-comments.doc
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20130121/5fce3b51/attachment-0001.doc>