[DCRM-L] 6JSC/LC/32: Revision to instructions for devised titles in RDA 2.3.2.11

[Allison Jai O'Dell]

It's a semantic argument, but one could suggest that using the opening
words of a text *as a title *is a title devised by the cataloging agency,
not the creator.

I vote for option a, since DCRM(G), (Mss), DACS, CCO, and the current
version of RDA all require (or strongly suggest) reference to the
manifestation in devised titles:

“Constructed titles may refer to the subject, the materials, the form, or
the function of the work” (CCO 1.2.2.2.2)

“devise a brief descriptive title that indicates either:
a) the nature of the resource (e.g., map, literary manuscript, diary,
advertisement) or
b) its subject (e.g., names of persons, corporate bodies, objects,
activities, events, geographical area and dates) or
c) a combination of the two, as appropriate.” (RDA 2.3.2.11)

“When devising title information, compose a brief title that uniquely
identifies the material, normally consisting of a name segment, a term
indicating the nature of the unit being described, and optionally a topical
segment as instructed in the following rules.  Do not enclose devised
titles in square brackets.” (DACS 2.3.3)

“For untitled images of a documentary nature, give the objective factual
content clearly and concisely, enclosed in square brackets. … Include the
following kinds of information in the devised title, as appropriate and
feasible:
o the subject type or form of material, e.g., view(s), portrait(s),
sketch(es)
o an identification of the main subject(s) depicted (i.e., persons, events,
activities, and objects)
o geographical location(s) depicted, if known and significant
o the date (including month and day, if considered important) or span dates
of what is being depicted if different from the date of publication or
execution” (DCRM(G) 1F2.1)

“For untitled images where the interest is in the aesthetic value of the
material, use a succinct descriptive phrasing of the subject, iconographic
theme, technique, artistic school or style, etc., when devising a title.”
(DCRM(G) 1F2.2)

“The following are required components:
o Form or genre (e.g., diary, sermon, account book, play)
o Creator, if known (for formulation of creator name, see 1B1.1) …
(DCRM(Mss) 1B1)



Two cents,
Allison


On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu>
wrote:

> I have mixed feeling about the LC proposal on devised titles.
>
>
>
> My first quibble is pedantic. RDA defines a devised title as “A title
> proper **created by an agency** preparing a description of a resource
> that bears no title itself and has no title associated with it that can be
> found in other sources …” (my emphasis added). If we record the opening
> words of a text, etc., as the title proper, the agency is not creating the
> title, so it is not really devised; so does that option really fit here?
>
>
>
> My second concern is more substantial. There appears to be significant
> redundancy between the data recorded as devised title for Title Proper of
> the manifestation and the data recorded as devised title for Title of the
> Work (see 6.2.2.6.2). For *most* of the examples of devised titles in
> 2.3.2.11 – including the format specific instructions in
> 2.3.2.11.1-2.3.2.11.4 – the (devised) Title of the Work would be identical.
> “Typescript draft of chapters 3-20 of Natchez pilgrimage” may be an
> exception.
>
>
>
> So perhaps we should reconsider the point of devised titles for
> manifestations? We might:
>
>
>
> a) require that a devised title for a manifestation include
> manifestation-specific information (as in “Typescript draft …”);
>
>
>
> or
>
>
>
> b) consider that the Title Proper is *always* transcribed information
> (and nothing more). If there’s nothing to transcribe, record nothing.
>
>
>
> I lean to the latter option. Keep in mind that the Preferred Title for the
> Work is a core element in RDA, so even if we omit a Title Proper, the
> devised title for the work would still appear in the description of the
> resource.
>
>
>
> Should I duck?
>
>
>
> Francis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
> <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>] *On Behalf Of *Matthew C. Haugen
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 11, 2015 3:04 PM
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
> *Subject:* [DCRM-L] Review of RDA proposals: Week 2
>
>
>
> …
>
> *Your feedback is especially valuable on these four proposals by* *THURSDAY,
> AUGUST 20:*
>
> 1.
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rda-2Djsc.org_sites_all_files_6JSC-2DLC-2D32.pdf&d=AwMFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=q_SIp8JGvAd7OYu2GHKZ2ZKnuQqjD052ZRnq0YD7V8Y&s=w5vPuCiYORboIDuHQef2-u3ZbbU6GvKjoLu-KJuonh8&e=>
>
> 6JSC/LC/32: Revision to instructions for devised titles in RDA 2.3.2.11
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rda-2Djsc.org_sites_all_files_6JSC-2DLC-2D32.pdf&d=AwMFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=q_SIp8JGvAd7OYu2GHKZ2ZKnuQqjD052ZRnq0YD7V8Y&s=w5vPuCiYORboIDuHQef2-u3ZbbU6GvKjoLu-KJuonh8&e=>
>
> This proposal seeks to provide greater flexibility for devising titles
> proper for manuscripts, ephemera, choreographic works, art, collections,
> etc.
>
>
> …
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150813/78a895a4/attachment-0001.html>