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

Fri Jun 12 11:29:16 MDT 2015

But curiously the description in the Bibframe vocabulary is actually of registers, often not present in a book with signatures: ‘Lists or summaries of signatures often printed at the end of early printed books.”  And it “refines” note (i.e. “Additional descriptive information associated with the resource.”), so I don’t think it’s either accurate or quite relevant.

John Lancaster

On Jun 12, 2015, at 1:13 PM, Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu> wrote:

> Thanks Allison.
>  
> You make a good point: the character of pagination and foliation information is not that different from signature information. It seems to me there’s a case for keeping them as separate data elements, especially if we want our displays to treat one differently from the other.
>  
> RDA treats signatures in the instructions for Note on Extent of Manifestation (see 3.21.2.9). As part of our DCRM revision, I suggest that we’ll want to propose a distinct data element for signatures. FWIW, there’s a property for signature in the provisional Bibframe Lite + Library + Rare Materials vocabulary:
>  
> http://bibfra.me/view/rare/
>  
> Francis
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Allison Jai O'Dell
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 5:08 PM
> To: DCRM Users' Group
> Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] revision of extent, dimensions, etc. (ALA proposal)
>  
> 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] 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
>  
>  
> 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.
>  
> 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/20150612/dc8e00c0/attachment-0001.html>