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

[Karen Attar]

Concerning the "infinitely more sensible" [12], 72, [10], 48, [6], 228, [16] pages: hear, hear!

The other is far too wordy, deviates too far from the pattern in which bibliographers have been trained (and will still be encountering in the printed bibliographies and catalogues they consult), and does not give as speedy or concise an impression of the book.#

Karen

Dr Karen Attar
Rare Books Librarian
Senate House Library, University of London
Senate House
Malet St
London
WC1E 7HU
Tel. 020 7862 8472
http://research.sas.ac.uk/search/fellow/516/dr-karen-attar/

The University of London is an exempt charity in England and Wales. We are committed to achieving a 20% cut in emissions from University buildings by 2015. Please think before you print

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Lapka, Francis
Sent: 11 June 2015 21:30
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] revision of extent, dimensions, etc. (ALA proposal)

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> [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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150612/8359e1e9/attachment-0001.html>