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

[Deborah J. Leslie]

This has been an interesting and enlightening conversation. I have nothing substantive to add about the placement of these types of notes.

I do have comments on the wording of examples 5-7, specifically, with "signed" and "inscription."

"Signed: Alex. Pope," as it stands, might be interpreted that it was signed in print, because that is what the term "signed" as currently used in notes signifies. See DCRM(B) 7B6.1 examples: "Dedication signed: Increase Mather." "Signed at end: A lover of truth." Even if such a note were recorded in an item-specific element or sub-element, that still leaves plenty of room for confusion. Could the example be changed to "Signed in manuscript:" or "Autograph:"?  Likewise with "Original, signed by John Hancock." The context of the first example, "Library has copy number 38 of 50; signed by the artist, " renders it less open to misunderstanding or confusion. Still, "Signed in manuscript by the artist" would eliminate any uncertainty.

As for the 5th example (Inscription on inside of front cover: Theodorinis ab Engelsberg.): "inscribe" and "inscription" are problematic words. The RBMS relator term "inscriber" (http://rbms.info/vocabularies/relators/tr18.htm) is scoped: Use for the entity that signs a presentation statement. Anecdotally, I can say many catalogers also use the term when describing an instance of a former owner's autograph when there's more information than just the name, such as date and place of purchase or the like. Although I realize that RDA isn't circumscribed by DCRM or the customs of American catalogers, I encourage a different, expanded example be used when using "inscription."



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 Mascaro,Michelle J
Sent: Friday, 08 May 2015 11:22
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] item-specific notes: RDA 2.21 and 3.22

​This has been an interesting discussion that has highlighted the difficulties of mapping the variety item notes we use as rare materials catalogers to RDA as currently structured and written. My thoughts on this issue…

I support the current proposal that these examples from 3.22 Note on Item-Specific Carrier Characteristics fit better (though imperfectly) at 2.21 Note on Item.  In addition to the arguments previously made in this thread, RDA 3.22 states “For notes on identifying item-specific characteristics other than those describing carriers, see 2.21,” which is distinctly different than the reciprocal statement in RDA 2.21, “For notes on describing item-specific carrier characteristics, see 3.22.”  In my interpretation, this means we actually have more wiggle room at 2.21 than at 3.22, and RDA is supporting a “when in doubt” use 2.21 approach for item notes.  I would like to recommend that this point is added to the background statement in the fast track proposal.

Kate brought up the valid concern about whether notes on item recorded under 2.21 have to directly map to the item attributes defined at 2.18-2.20.  As she pointed out, the sub-elements under the equivalent Note on Manifestation (2.17) imply that is the case.  I think this is a case where RDA’s intentions are unclear.  Recently, Francis posed the question to RDA-L about whether Note on Manifestation is an element that can contain data (such as dedication statements which do not fit into any of the 2.17 sub-elements) or just an umbrella concept for the specific sub-elements Note on Title, Note on Statement Responsibility, etc.  Gordon Dunsire, JSC chair, responded that Note on Manifestation is an element that can contain data.   (I will forward the message to DCRM-L shortly for those who have not seen it on RDA-L.) In principle, I feel the placement in 2.21 of example item notes that do not necessarily correspond to item attributes specifically defined in chapter 2, but are not carrier characteristics, is in line with Dunsire’s clarification on 2.17.

As I have reflected on this issue, I am coming to realize that much of our community’s struggle/confusion is due to the fact we are thinking of all these item characteristic statements solely as notes because that is how we have recorded them in the AACR2/MARC environment. In RDA, many of the types of item notes we define would benefit from being made official item elements.  History of item, as Kate suggested, is a prime example.

Ultimately, I would like to see the current fast track proposal on moving examples pushed forward to the JSC for discussion, and then as a next step, new proposals for additional item elements that serve the needs of the rare materials cataloging community.

Sincerely,

Michelle

Michelle Mascaro
Associate Professor of Bibliography
Coordinator, Cataloging Services and Special Collections Cataloger
University Libraries
The University of Akron
Akron, OH 44325-1712
330-972-2446 (Electronic Services, Cataloging Unit)
330-972-6830 (Archival Services)
Email: mjm125 at uakron.edu<mailto:mjm125 at uakron.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 James, Kate
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 11:22 AM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] item-specific notes: RDA 2.21 and 3.22

Francis,

Children often write their names all over books that don’t belong to them.   Children take ink stamps and bookplates that belong to their parents and use them to “decorate” library books.  Libraries often retain these books in their collections because of the cost of replacing them only to be redecorated by the next child that borrows the book.  That doesn’t mean these things that look like marks of ownership are actually indicative of custodial history of the item.  However, noting their presence is still useful to a library because 1) it gives an indication of the physical condition of the item and 2) it helps to uniquely identify the library’s copies.    Also, when a library does have money to buy replacements, notes about things written in books (so valued when it’s Thomas Jefferson’s copy and so not valued when it’s a public library’s copy of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire) can be useful in identifying what copies to replace.

That’s not me “looking for trouble” (which seems a harsh criticism since you posted this email saying, “Comments welcome”).  What you characterized as me “looking for trouble” is the experience I bring having worked in a variety of libraries and having seen how things that might mean something in one context for one type of book can mean something completely different in another context with another type of book.  As a general cataloging standard, RDA is supposed to accommodate this variety.

You did not address my general point that while I can see how these notes could fit into a note on item because they convey information about the item, they do not in the current chapter 2, which has very few attributes of item.  I can see some of the notes moving into chapter 2 if more attributes were added.  For example, a “history of the item” attribute, which has precedent with history of the work (6.7) and could be a great place to record a lot of copy-specific information like, “Initialed by Thomas Jefferson at signatures I and T.”  I’m not sure what to call it, but I the copy number owned by a library for limited printings (e.g., Library has copy 38 of 50) would also be a good attribute in chapter 2.

Kate



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, May 06, 2015 8:33 AM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] item-specific notes: RDA 2.21 and 3.22

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> [mailto: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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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]
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<mailto:jxa16 at psu.edu>> (jxa16 at psu.edu<mailto: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/20150511/b045ddb7/attachment-0001.html>