[DCRM-L] revision of extent, dimensions, etc. (ALA proposal)

[Allison Jai O'Dell]

I agree that the rare materials use case for a pagination statement such as
"[12], 72, [10], 48, [6], 228, [16] pages" has do with *numbering*, not
extent.  Such statements help document what's in a book (leaves, printing,
etc.)  They don't measure anything.

I would suggest a numbering element, to include pagination, foliation,
*and* signature/collation
statements.

I do like the aspect-unit-quantity model for true measurements.


Allison

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu>
wrote:

>  Thanks Deborah.
>
>
>
> I assume that you are advocating for the infinitely more sensible: [12],
> 72, [10], 48, [6], 228, [16] pages
>
>
>
> If RDA adopts the idea of a separate element for pagination and foliation,
> I wonder if there’s now a stronger argument for reverting to the
> traditional form for such statements. That is, if pagination is a sort of
> transcription (now divorced from extent), and if the identification of
> unnumbered pages is a form of supplied information within a transcription,
> *then* RDA (per 2.2.4) tells us that the use of square brackets is a
> valid way to indicate that the information is supplied. So the traditional
> format for recording pagination would actually be more in tune with RDA
> principles (for transcription) than the “unnumbered pages” nonsense.
>
>
>
> I’d be happy to raise this idea when we present the proposal to CC:DA
> (what fun that discussion might be!); and/or Matthew or I could post such
> an argument on the CC:DA blog, in advance of the meeting.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Deborah J. Leslie
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2015 3:24 PM
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] revision of extent, dimensions, etc. (ALA
> proposal)
>
>
>
> I think the general proposal makes excellent sense. However, I am dismayed
> to see that the pagination and foliation element would still leave us with
> this ungainly statement:
>
>
>
> 12 unnumbered pages, 72 pages, 10 unnumbered pages, 48
>
> pages, 6 unnumbered pages, 228 pages, 16 unnumbered
>
> pages
>
>
>
> Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu |
> 202.675-0369 | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 | www.
> folger.edu
>
>
>
> *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 *Lapka, Francis
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 10 June 2015 10:04
> *To:* dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
> *Subject:* [DCRM-L] revision of extent, dimensions, etc. (ALA proposal)
>
>
>
> Hi all.
>
>
>
> I call your attention to an RDA revision proposal that will be discussed
> in the CC:DA meeting at Annual:
>
>
>
> Task Force on Machine-Actionable Data Elements in RDA Chapter 3 : Revision
> Proposal
>
> http://alcts.ala.org/ccdablog/?p=2032
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__alcts.ala.org_ccdablog_-3Fp-3D2032&d=AwMFAg&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=AIMB40I0lcZrVq_HfybnwsKNYFjzXEqHWIEqujk9Jy0&s=B1LZA2oMP_sCOiM2VXJuP5xz7CiFf9ouiFBkXbFTPJU&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
> The proposal suggests major changes to RDA for Extent and Dimensions, as
> well as Duration. The primary aim is to allow numerical measurements to be
> recorded in a machine-actionable fashion, applying controlled vocabularies
> for measurement types, units, etc. In so doing, RDA would incorporate
> changes already introduced in cataloging standards of the museum and
> archival communities. The potential benefits are best outlined in the task
> force’s first discussion paper:
> http://alcts.ala.org/ccdablog/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/tf-mrdata3.pdf
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__alcts.ala.org_ccdablog_wp-2Dcontent_uploads_2012_06_tf-2Dmrdata3.pdf&d=AwMFAg&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=AIMB40I0lcZrVq_HfybnwsKNYFjzXEqHWIEqujk9Jy0&s=mUAA8fwJAa4VOKNgCjaiMyyJ4eR49OKUP4FaDa5Ds0M&e=>
> .
>
>
>
> Now let’s get to the fun stuff.
>
>
>
> In its review of Extent, the task force proposes greater adherence to the
> FRBR model by creating a new data element for Extent of the Content. For
> some formats, it has long been standard practice to record a quantification
> of content as Extent, e.g. 3 maps, 1 drawing, or 2 scores. The proposal
> suggests that such information should now be recorded as an attribute of
> the Expression. For the DCRM community, this change most impacts
> descriptions for Cartographic, Graphic, and Music resources. Extent of the
> *carrier* for such material would now be recorded in terms of sheets,
> volumes, etc., as appropriate (for more, see page 134 of the proposal).
>
>
>
> The proposal also suggests a change that would impact all DCRM formats: a
> new element for Pagination and Foliation, which would re-purpose many of
> the instructions in RDA 3.4.5 Extent of Text. We suggest this change
> because pagination and foliation data is fundamentally different than that
> recorded for other varieties of Extent of the Carrier. That is, only for
> subunits of volumes do we emphasize how the resource *self-represents*
> its numeration. This practice is more like transcription than true
> measurement (for more, see pages 9-11 and 56 of the proposal).
>
>
>
> I’m happy to explain (and/or reconsider) anything in the proposal that is
> unclear or troublesome.
>
>
>
> For those of you thinking “Egad!” or other oaths, rest assured that these
> changes are too major to be introduced quickly; and in places, there’s
> still obvious work to do. You will have plenty of opportunity to shape how
> the proposal goes forward. Matthew Haugen (RBMS Liaison to CC:DA), Liz
> O’Keefe (ARLIS/NA Liaison to CC:DA, and contributor the proposal), and I
> are all keen to convey your sentiments.
>
>
>
> Francis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Francis Lapka  ·  Catalog Librarian
>
> Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts
>
> Yale Center for British Art
>
> 203.432.9672  ·  francis.lapka at yale.edu
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150611/c1cda4b6/attachment.html>