[DCRM-L] Title -- Date, name, number, etc., that varies from issue to issue (RDA 2.3.1.4)

Mon Jun 16 12:56:40 MDT 2014

Thanks Nina and Bob.

As Bob says, I believe that the RDA approach (as found in 2.3.1.4, if applied to multipart monographs, and as proposed for 6.2) would have us render our DCRM(B) example as:

Thomas Masterson his ... booke of arithmeticke

(instead of)

Thomas Masterson his first[-second] booke of arithmeticke

Is the same approach applied to our other two examples from DCRM(B) as satisfactory?

[DCRM(B) Ex. 1]:  Quinti Horatii Flacci epistolarum liber primus[-secundus]

[RDA approach, Ex. 1]:  Quinti Horatii Flacci epistolarum liber ...
     [or?]       Quinti Horatii Flacci epistolarum ...

[DCRM(B) Ex. 3]:  Le premier[-quart] volume de messire Jehan Froissart lequel traicte des choses dignes de memoire aduenues tant es pays de France, Angleterre, Flanders, Espaigne que Escoce, et autres lieux circonuoisins

[RDA approach, Ex. 3]:  Le ... volume de messire Jehan Froissart lequel traicte des choses dignes de memoire aduenues tant es pays de France, Angleterre, Flanders, Espaigne que Escoce, et autres lieux circonuoisins

Francis

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 2:48 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Title -- Date, name, number, etc., that varies from issue to issue (RDA 2.3.1.4)

I believe the transcription following the basic RDA rule would be:

Thomas Masterson his ... booke of arithmeticke

not

Thomas Masterson his first ... booke of arithmeticke

vs. current DCRM

Thomas Masterson his first[-second] booke of arithmeticke

Since the transcription is supposed to represent the resource as a whole, I could live with that as long as we included a note about what was left out. The DCRM transcription isn't any more or less "faithful" than the RDA one since the DCRM transcripton interposes something that is not there on the first volume or the second volume. Actually one might argue tha the RDA transcription is more faithful than the DCRM because it omits something (and not silently) but doesn't add anything that isn't actually on the title page.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.

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 Schneider, Nina
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 10:12 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Title -- Date, name, number, etc., that varies from issue to issue (RDA 2.3.1.4)

HI Francis

Personally, I'd say yes for Q1, no for Q2, and Q3 undecided. I think the difference with multipart monographs is that the user would have more difficulty understanding the relationship of subsequent titles if there was a mark of omission because the first instantiation is grammatically linked. In other words, how would I know that "Thomas Masterson his first... booke of arithmeticke" is omitting the word "[-second]"? The missing information could also be a long string of adjectives. I suppose the information could be supplied in a note.

Nina

+---------------
Nina M. Schneider
Chair, RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee

Head Cataloger
William Andrews Clark Memorial Library
2520 Cimarron Street
Los Angeles, CA  90018
(323) 731-8529

nschneider at humnet.ucla.edu<mailto:nschneider at humnet.ucla.edu>
http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/clarklib/

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: Monday, June 16, 2014 5:33 AM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: [DCRM-L] Title -- Date, name, number, etc., that varies from issue to issue (RDA 2.3.1.4)

I'd like your thoughts (see Questions at end) on the following item on the CC:DA agenda:
Proposal: Using the mark of omission in preferred titles (RDA 6.2)<http://alcts.ala.org/ccdablog/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/KPG201404.pdf>

It proposes new guidelines for the title of a Work that would parallel the guidelines in the Exception under RDA 2.3.1.4<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/rdachp2_rda2-3233.html>:

Date, name, number, etc., that varies from issue to issue. If a title of a serial includes a date, name, number, etc., that varies from issue to issue, omit this date, name, number, etc. Use a mark of omission (...) to indicate such an omission.
EXAMPLE
Report on the ... Conference on Development Objectives and Strategy
Source of information reads: Report on the 4th Conference on Development Objectives and Strategy
...

RDA 2.3.1.4 concerns serials only, and use of the mark of omission in this scenario replicates a practice established in AACR2 (12.1B7<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/aacr2chp12_aacr2chp12-605.html>) and DCRMS (1B6.4<https://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=tocid&doc_key=Infobasedcrms0Dash0Dash0Dash249&hash=PPTOC1B6.4.%20Omission%20of%20dates,%20names,%20numbers,%20etc.>).  The proposed addition to guidelines for the title of a Work (RDA 6.2), however, would be applicable to "a multipart monograph or a serial."  A preliminary comment from a CC:DA constituent suggests that it would be logically consistent to apply the 2.3.1.4 Exception to multipart monographs as well.

Such a change to 2.3.1.4 would treat the scenario differently than it is treated in DCRM(B) 1B4:
1B4. Title proper<https://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=dcrmbTitleSPACEproperSLASHglossary&hash=TitleSPACEproperSLASHglossary> with grammatically inseparable designation   [https://desktop.loc.gov/DocView/ESPDCRMB/img/AACR2%20button]
If a publication is in more than one volume and the title proper<https://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=dcrmbTitleSPACEproperSLASHglossary&hash=TitleSPACEproperSLASHglossary> of each volume includes a grammatically inseparable designation such as numbering that is specific to that volume, supply in square brackets after the first designation a hyphen and the final designation, omitting intermediate designations. Do the same for single-volume publications that contain multiple parts.
...
Thomas Masterson his first[-second] booke of arithmeticke

QUESTIONS

1.      Do we support the proposal as written (the addition to RDA 6.2)?

2.      Should the Exception in RDA 2.3.1.4 be amended to apply to multipart monographs as well?

3.      Alternatively, should a different Exception be added to 2.3.1.4 to treat multipart monographs. Is there a logical justification for treating monographs differently (employing the 1B4 approach instead of using the mark of omission)?

Thanks,
Francis

CC:DA Liaison

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20140616/e932f54f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 174 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20140616/e932f54f/attachment-0001.png>