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

[Noble, Richard]

[*Warning: Obiter Dicta ahead.*]

I'm leery of "tighter semantic scope" as an end in itself, though I
recognize that what we're really talking about may just be proper tagging
of information related to various aspects of an individual book; but one
must not fall into the trap of putting the communication format ahead of
communication.

I'm arguing backwards, of course, since what immediately concerns me is the
imposition of tight semantic compartmentalization on item-level rapportage,
based on a model developed for communicating manifestation-level--and
manifestation defining--evidence, which may itself become circumstantially
problematic. Maintaining the distinction between "physical attributes" and
"signs" for its own sake may become counter-productive when the real effort
called for is that of developing the evidence necessary to reconstruct the
physical processes that put the signs in place, that manifested the
manifestation, so to speak, and even to make the necessary distinctions
between manifestation (issue, basically), state, and copy-level phenomena.

These things are frequently confused in records that I encounter (and often
must refashion) every day, masked by a show of adherence to semantic
compartmentalization that excuses, because it *looks* like a good job, a
lack of the knowledge by which one can understand and communicate what
these bits of evidence evidence, or don't evidence. It can sometimes
replace the art of seeing a thing with painting by numbers.

Again, I'm not sure that I'm responding to this thread in particular. But I
do see in it a further hint that RDA is having a very bad influence on
catalogers--and even frustrating the purposes of FRBR, our first foray into
truly bibliographical cataloging--in the way that it leads us down garden
paths of ever greater triviality, false distinction, and neglect of the
bibliographical narrative that justifies our work especially, that crazy
combination of philology and industrial archaeology, the history of saying
and making.

In short, I don't want to see yet another area where I know what I want to
say, but rules do get in the way.

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 Wed, May 6, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu>
wrote:

>  Kate,
>
>
>
> I concede that the proposal touches upon gray areas, but I think it makes
> a pragmatic attempt to respect RDA’s structural divisions.
>
>
>
> You say:
>
>
>
> Because “carrier characteristics” is not defined in RDA, you have more
> wiggle-room about what can be considered a carrier characteristic.
>
>
>
> Whether RDA defines it or not, there’s little ambiguity that ‘carrier
> characteristic’ (in chapter 3) refers to a physical attribute of the
> resource, as with every other data element in chapter 3. This is in tidy
> contrast to chapter 2, which provides attributes concerning the information
> (signs and symbols) manifested. If RDA provides elements in both chapters
> to record item-specific notes, then Kathy’s division is logical; the
> examples she proposes to move to chapter 2 primarily concern information
> manifested in the resource.
>
>
>
> You say:
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> This is looking for trouble where it’s not necessary. We record statements
> like these – or notes about bookplates – *primarily* to provide clues
> about provenance, infrequently to record the physical aspects. If we were
> limited by the burden of absolute proof, our records would be bereft of
> provenance tracings.
>
>
>
> You say:
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> By this same argument, a printed title and edition statement would also be
> carrier characteristics (of the chapter 3 variety) because they too are
> applied with ink. If the nature of the ink is the primary reason for
> recording a note, record it in chapter 3. But for the examples in the
> present proposal, the provenance information noted is the essence, not the
> physical details. Some notes may truly straddle the chapter 2/3 division;
> perhaps something like: “Inscribed in graphite: Nicolas-Jacques Conté.” I’d
> happily put such a note in our Chapter 2 element.
>
>
>
> Any agency that wishes to record all item-specific notes in the chapter 3
> element is free to take that path. But for the agencies that would prefer
> to employ a range of elements for item-specific notes of tighter semantic
> scope, I would like RDA to clearly define this option (to be refined by the
> DCRM revision in the works).
>
>
>
> Francis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *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 *James, Kate
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 05, 2015 11:55 AM
> *To:* dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] item-specific notes: RDA 2.21 and 3.22
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *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:* Tuesday, May 05, 2015 10:51 AM
> *To:* dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
> *Subject:* [DCRM-L] FW: item-specific notes: RDA 2.21 and 3.22
>
>
>
> 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 <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
> <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); John Attig <jxa16 at psu.edu> (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
> <francis.lapka at yale.edu>]
> *Sent:* Friday, March 20, 2015 8:50 AM
> *To:* 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150506/86202474/attachment-0001.html>