[DCRM-L] FW: item-specific notes: RDA 2.21 and 3.22

Tue May 5 08:51:21 MDT 2015

Kathy Glennan, our ALA rep. to the JSC, has put together a fast-track proposal on the matter of item-specific notes. See below (or the attached). Comments welcome.

Francis

In response to a question raised on RDA-L in late March, ALA proposes adding examples to help clarify the differences between RDA 2.21, Note on Item, and RDA 3.22, Note on Item-Specific Carrier Characteristic.
Although our suggestions focus solely on examples, this seems like a change that the JSC as a whole should endorse, which is why I am submitting this as a fast track proposal.

Background:
RDA 3.22, Note on Item-Specific Carrier Characteristic, contains a number of examples. RDA 2.21, Note on Item, contains no examples. ALA assumes that 2.21 elaborates on attributes covered in Chapter 2, while 3.22 elaborates on attributes recorded according to Chapter 3. However, there are a number of examples in 3.22 that are not about the physical carrier.

Proposal:
Move the following examples from the various sub-instructions in 3.22 to 2.21.1.3, Making Notes on Item, since they do not convey information about physical attributes:
Library has copy number 38 of 50; signed by the artist.
Notes by author on endpapers.
Stamp: Château de La Roche Guyon, Bibliothèque.
[Note: this is the 2nd clause in the 4th example in 3.22.1.4; the first part, “Contemporary doeskin over boards”, should remain in 3.22.1.4.]
Inscription on inside of front cover: Theodorinis ab Engelsberg.
Signed: Alex. Pope
Original, signed by John Hancock
Marginalia by Robert Graves

From: Kathy Glennan [mailto:kglennan at umd.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 10:09 AM
To: Mascaro,Michelle J; Matthew C. Haugen; Pearson, Audrey
Cc: Lapka, Francis; John Attig <jxa16 at psu.edu> (jxa16 at psu.edu)
Subject: RE: item-specific notes: RDA 2.21 and 3.22

All-

I’m prepared to submit the attached fast track proposal to the JSC. Do you have any comments/corrections/etc. before I do so?

I’d appreciate a response by 5/15, so I can get something off of my never-ending “to do” list.

Many thanks,

Kathy

[other correspondence omitted]

From: Lapka, Francis [mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu]
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 10:52 AM
To: Kathy Glennan
Cc: Pearson, Audrey; Mascaro,Michelle J; Matthew C. Haugen (mch2167 at columbia.edu<mailto:mch2167 at columbia.edu>); John Attig <jxa16 at psu.edu<mailto:jxa16 at psu.edu>> (jxa16 at psu.edu<mailto:jxa16 at psu.edu>)
Subject: item-specific notes: RDA 2.21 and 3.22

Hi, Kathy (and friends).

I think RDA would benefit from clarification on the intended usage of Note on Item (2.21) – and, specifically, on how it varies from Note on Item-Specific Carrier Characteristic (3.22). My query to the RDA-L list on the matter has yet to receive a useful response.

In a brief chat on Friday, John Attig suggested a principle that seems like a good starting point (paraphrasing): Note on Item elaborates on attributes covered in Chapter 2, whereas Note on Item-Specific Carrier Characteristic elaborates on attributes covered in Chapter 3. That concept is in line with RDA’s instruction in 3.22: “For notes on identifying item-specific characteristics other than those describing carriers, see 2.21.” My instinct is to put description related to item-specific physical attributes in 3.22, everything else in 2.21 – but this instinct may be entirely misguided.

Would the following examples in 3.22 make more sense in 2.21?

Library has copy number 38 of 50; signed by the artist.

Notes by author on endpapers.

Stamp: Château de La Roche Guyon, Bibliothèque.

Inscription on inside of front cover: Theodorinis ab Engelsberg.

Signed: Alex. Pope

Original, signed by John Hancock

Marginalia by Robert Graves

On the other hand, it wouldn’t surprise me if a portion of the special collections community would oppose a division at all, because some item-specific attributes touch on both sides of the fence: e.g. description of an armorial binding would describe provenance and carrier. Blergh.

Kathy, can you suggest a way forward? Do you see this a problem in need of fixing? At minimum, do we need examples in 2.21? Would it be better to bring forward a revision proposal? (If so, I’m skeptical we could do so this year.)

Thanks,
Francis

From: Lapka, Francis [mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 8:50 AM
To: rda-l at lists.ala.org<mailto:rda-l at lists.ala.org>
Subject: [RDA-L] Note on Item (2.21) versus Note on Item-Specific Carrier Characteristic (3.22)

Could someone explain to me the kind of data that RDA would intend us to record in Note on Item (2.21)? There are no examples.

Note on Item-Specific Carrier Characteristic (3.22) includes information on item-specific imperfections, physical materials (e.g. bespoke bindings), annotations/inscriptions, and limited edition numbering. What’s left for 2.21?

Thanks,
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/20150505/d4277dfc/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ALA FT item notes.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 19008 bytes
Desc: ALA FT item notes.docx
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150505/d4277dfc/attachment-0001.docx>