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

[Noble, Richard]

With regard to local record construction, what difference does any of this
actually make? What is the point of minute prescription? The pointillist
incoherence that I often see as a result of over-adherence to rules
regarding distribution of information and note order can at least be
avoided in local notes if one focuses on telling the story.

RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
<Richard_Noble at Br <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Allison Jai O'Dell <ajodell at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I agree with Kate.  And I will add that what's important is not the
> content of the note, but the context of / impetus for the note.
>
> Example -- a note describes a bookplate:
> Is this note being used to tell the story of custodial history? = Chapter
> 2
> Is this note being used to describe the physical condition of the item? =
> Chapter 3
>
>
> Allison
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 11:54 AM, James, Kate <kjam at loc.gov> wrote:
>
>> Francis,
>>
>>
>>
>> My problem with this proposal is that these notes do not necessarily fit
>> in the scope of note on item as defined at 2.21.1.1: “A note on item is
>> a note providing information on attributes of the item.”  There are three
>> attributes of item defined in chapter 2: custodial history of item;
>> immediate source of acquisition of item; and identifier for the item.  2.21
>> Note on Item is the item-note equivalent of 2.17 Note on Manifestation.  If
>> you look at the sub-instructions in 2.17, you see how they map to
>> attributes of the manifestation like statement of responsibility and
>> publication statement.  The notes in your email are not necessarily
>> indicative of attributes of the item according to 2.18-2.20 so how can you
>> make a notes on them at 2.21?
>>
>>
>>
>> Some of them, like “Stamp: Château de La Roche Guyon, Bibliothèque” and
>>  “Signed: Alex. Pope” might be part of the custodial history of the item,
>> but you really can’t say without more information.  Since the stamp and
>> signature would have to be done with an applied material like ink, I can
>> see how that would be an item-specific carrier characteristic because the
>> ink is an applied material unique to those items. So if you really wanted
>> to parse it finely, in the case where a book has a stamp indicating its
>> previous owner, the information contained in the stamp is part of chapter
>> 2, and the fact that the stamp appears on this copy of the book only is
>> part of chapter 3.  Splitting things this finely can result in notes that
>> are less friendly to human users.  Take the example “Spine title: Rocque's
>> map of Shropshire” in 2.17.2.3.  Technically, only the source of the spine
>> title, which is the spine, belongs as a note in 2.17.2.3.  The title itself
>> is a variant title, which can be recorded as an attribute according to
>> 2.3.6.  However, the pure approach results in this misleading information:
>>
>>
>>
>> Variant title: Rocque's map of Shropshire
>>
>> Note on title:  Title from spine
>>
>>
>>
>> If we have the ability to constrain the “note on title” to the variant
>> title rather than any other kind of title, e.g., the title proper, this
>> approach works.  And many of us do actually have that ability by using a
>> MARC 246 18, in which the note is generated by the indicator and the
>> variant title is recorded in the 246 $a.  However, not everyone is
>> implementing RDA with an “encoding standard” that can do this, and the JSC
>> wanted variety shown in the examples.  If there is only one variant title,
>> you can do this particular example on a 3x5 card, but once you have
>> multiple variant titles from multiple sources (e.g., spine, added title
>> page, cover), you either confuse your users or you mix your attributes.
>>
>>
>>
>> That was a bit of a digression so circling back to 2.21 vs. 3.22…
>>
>>
>>
>> In contrast to 2.21’s “Note on Item”, 3.22, Note on Item-Specific Carrier
>> Characteristics, has a much broader scope: “A note on item-specific carrier
>> characteristic is a note providing additional information about carrier
>> characteristics that are specific to the item being described and are
>> assumed not to apply to other items exemplifying the same manifestation.”
>> Because “carrier characteristics” is not defined in RDA, you have more
>> wiggle-room about what can be considered a carrier characteristic.  I
>> agree, some of these examples don’t neatly fit into chapter 3, but they
>> don’t fit into chapter 2 as currently written either.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kate James
>>
>> Policy and Standards Division
>>
>> Library of congress
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150505/bc785c18/attachment-0001.html>