[DCRM-L] FW: DCRM2: transcription of punctuation

[Lapka, Francis]

I am passing along a set of responses on this issue from colleagues working in Oxford libraries, where there appears to a be a tradition of invoking the alternative at DCRM(B) 0G3.1 (“Transcribe all punctuation as found in the source of information …”), or something close to it. The responses include arguments for continuing this practice and arguments for adhering closer to RDA principles (option 3 in the original message).

Many thanks to Julie Blyth and Iris O’Brien for compiling and sharing the responses.

Francis



From: Julie Blyth [mailto:julie.blyth at ccc.ox.ac.uk]
Sent: 20 January 2014 14:22
To: O'Brien, Iris
Subject: RE: DCRM2: transcription of punctuation

Dear Iris,

As promised, here are a number of (anonymised) responses from antiquarian cataloguers currently working in Oxford libraries.  There wasn’t a consensus reached on these issues, and as many of the cataloguers put a lot of work into thinking through and responding to each point, I have included their entire responses in their own words, rather than attempting to summarise or paraphrase.  There were also a number of cataloguers who didn’t put forward a response in writing, but mentioned to me privately that for reasons similar to those expanded upon below, they would prefer to continue transcribing punctuation from the source, and do not see the use of double punctuation as a ‘con’; thus indicating, I believe, their support for Francis Lapka’s option 2.


Respondent 1
I've never liked double punctuation. It seems we have to decide whether we're making an exact transcript of the original title-page, in which case we should retain the original punctuation, or
following prescribed punctuation for general cataloguing, which raises the question why differentiate between antiquarian and general cataloguing at all?


Respondent 2
I would like to say, first, that I think that, to retain consistency of description, antiquarian cataloguing should simply carry on as it has with no changes, despite the machinations of the world of modern librarianship.

In general, I think that DCRM’s notion that marks of punctuation are not an aspect of a transcription that can be used for identification is a poorly considered one and should never be applied to the description of antiquarian materials. Transcribing what is in the source as often as possible is, by far, the best policy. I am not worried about DCRM’s apparent concern over double-punctuation in order to achieve this. Most people who would be looking in the first place for antiquarian materials could probably reason out double punctuation for themselves, especially if they are comparing a record to something they have in their hands. Leaving out  punctuation or adding punctuation that was not printed in the original, however, is almost certainly misleading by design and goes, I believe, against our mission of accurately describing our libraries’ materials and making them accessible. Besides, if a user has confusion over a record, wouldn’t we all hope that they turn to a librarian for assistance?

0G3.1. General rule.
Although I am pleased to see that RDA defaults to transcribing the punctuation as it appears in the source, I would insist that we still be able to include punctuation that falls between separated elements. In antiquarian description, I repeat myself, it is so often that punctuation will help differentiate multiple settings of a work. While these particular instances of punctuation might not always be the only means of making distinction between varying copies, to disallow their inclusion would be a step towards crippling ourselves as cataloguers.

DCRM(B) 0G3.4. Punctuation within roman numerals.
As with the general rule, I must again push for transcribing what is present in the source. No matter from where they are transcribed, things such as punctuation, spacing, etc., are very useful in antiquarian description.

DCRM(B) 0G3.5. Ellipses, square brackets, and virgules.
I would have a hard time arguing for or against virgules, as it is already fairly accepted practice to transcribe them as commas.

Transcribing ellipses seems harmless enough to me. Why not do so? In fact, I am more in favour of their transcription than I am in favour of actually digesting the transcribed text. An ellipsed title implies fewer keywords, potentially causing less precision in searching and more difficulty for the user to find the correct record. If a catalogue user has the item in front of them only to learn that the cataloguer faithfully transcribed a series of dots, however, no harm done. I fail to see any ill effects to indexing. I realize that we are all at the mercy of our cataloguing softwares, that most have character limits for any given field (With so many advances in computing technologies over the last 30 years, I struggle to understand why such limits still exist), so I know that ellipses do happen.

The introduction of square brackets obviously could cause confusion, this already being a means of distinguishing part of a transcription as originating in a different form within the source, i.e. transliterated Greek. I guess my hope would be to carry on as we have.

DCRM(B) 0G3.6. Line endings.
In regards to line endings, it has been my experience to disregard these in transcription as per the cataloguing practices of any institution for which I have worked. This has always been the case, so it is how I have worked. Is it wrong in the face of other assertions I’ve made about the importance of accuracy of description? Perhaps. I remain wishy-washy.


Respondent 3
I would like to second [Respondent 2]’s thoughtful response -- he has said it all as far as I am concerned.

Respondent 4
In principle, I’d prefer option 3, in order to stay in line with modern cataloguing as far as is practical.  Marc isn’t going to last forever, and Bibframe is being created to work with RDA as Marc was created to work with AACR. Obviously, it would be easiest now to carry on pretty much as we are, but it could risk making things more complicated than they have to be in future.

It is rather unfortunate that the RDA examples aren’t a bit more self-explanatory, though. I have no idea what the imaginary title pages are supposed to have looked like.


Respondent 5
Please let's try to continue with transcribing the punctuation as is, meaning double punctuation where necessary. It helps one work out, for instance, which of four editions all published in the same year one has on the table, or at least cuts down the options. When I first started antiquarian cataloguing I thought double punctuation looked bizarre, so I understand that readers might be baffled, but it took only a day or two to look normal; now I expect to see it and don't trust a record without it. I am sure readers looking for such details also expect antiquarian records to look this way. If we stop we lose a valuable tool, and I don't see to what purpose.


Respondent 6
I agree with [Respondent 4] that it is desirable to aim for consistency and compatibility as far as possible, and that means following RDA with all its weaknesses. Therefore I would prefer option 3 (“Follow the RDA guidelines, with additional clarifications for special collections”).

It is true, as [Respondent 2]  writes, that faithful transcription of punctuation is potentially valuable for identifying and distinguishing settings, but I wonder if its value is exaggerated. Unless a reader or librarian is confident that a single cataloguing standard has been applied correctly over time, and can discover which options have been adopted, it is already dangerous to make inferences from a catalogue record alone.

I’m content that antiquarian catalogue records do not attempt quasi-facsimile transcription, silently normalising the long s, roman/italic, and capitalisation. I’m content for punctuation to be normalised as well. So where RDA recommends faithful transcription, I endorse it, and where RDA permits normalisation, I endorse it. The exceptions would be the apparently unintentional problems caused by RDA’s lack of clarity over terminal punctuation and line-ending hyphens.


Respondent 7
My response is that we carry on with double punctuation and we follow the BL’s modification for physical descriptions. If the BL change their minds though we’ll follow their practice as I do think we need to follow RDA as much as we can.


Respondent 8
I have had a chance to read over the correspondence and the original document, and two things strike me.  Firstly, I agree with almost everything [Respondent 2] says.  His first, second and third major paragraphs could not express better my own views on the questions raised, and I would like to add my own thought (which derives from what [Respondent 2] says) that good cataloguing is not just for the benefit of readers, it is a great boon to other cataloguers and librarians too.  I am very much in favour transcribing punctuation as it appears, and not making any interventions, either to express line-endings or to remove any elements of punctuation.  I think, for antiquarian cataloguing, this should be a fundamental (at least until digital representations of title-pages make all transcription unnecessary, which I am probably too old to live to see).

Where I do differ slightly is on the use of ellipses and square brackets (though not on virgules). What is not quite clear from the original notes and examples is that, as I understand it, RDA prescribes that square brackets in the source should be transcribed as square brackets, and that three full-points in the source should be transcribed as “…”.  I think this is what Francis Lapka is getting at when he says “is there a rare materials reason to vary from RDA?”  If this is what he is referring to, then I would say “Yes, there most certainly is”.  I think antiquarian cataloguers must keep the clear, specific meaning and use of the mark of ellipsis (only to indicate something omitted) and square brackets (only to indicate interpolated, additional or corrective information added by the cataloguer -- by the way, I personally do not think transliterations, of Greek for example, should be given in square brackets, since such transliterations are not added by the cataloguer as such, but simply represent something present in the source, albeit rendered with different characters -- but that is, perhaps, an argument for another day and not really relevant here).  If we lose the clarity of meaning of these symbols (marks of ellipsis and square brackets), we are losing a great deal and introducing a great potential for confusion and error in the reading of catalogue records, both by readers and librarians/cataloguers.   I also think it will be important to retain the use of these symbols in other contexts in which antiquarian cataloguing must differ from RDA (such as in the rules relating to imprints, and physical descriptions, which may well come up in future, as others of the four “issues” mention by Francis).  I would be very sorry to see DCRB abandon the clarity and precision of … and [] in the interests of conforming to RDA’s (admittedly laudable) intention of reducing the use of symbols and abbreviations.

Overall, I would be generally in favour of Francis’s Option 2, and I think the “con” he mentions does not really hold true at Oxford, where this rule, or something very like it, has pertained for some years.

________________________________
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Lapka, Francis
Sent: 11 December 2013 17:41
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto: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>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20140121/58632ba3/attachment-0001.html>