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

[Elizabeth O'Keefe]

I think it's a very good idea to specify when "signed" means handwritten,
as opposed to printed.

As I thought about the examples, I wondered whether it would be necessary
to create two notes when evidence relevant to the manifestation appears
only in the item. Two examples:

a handwritten inscription on a printed book that provides evidence of
authorship (for example, a handwritten note on the flyleaf of a book with
no statement or responsibility, that says something like, "written by my
father-in-law, John L. Sullivan, but published anonymously"). Assuming this
statement was verifiable, it would justify assigning authorial
responsibility to John L. Sullivan. The justification for doing this would
be recorded as a Note on Statement of Responsibility (2.17.3), which would
include a citation to the item that was the source of the information.
Would you also enter this information as an item-specific note, or is the
manifestation-level note sufficient?

a signature on an undated or incorrectly dated autograph letter that
provides evidence on *when* the letter was written (in the case of someone
signing a letter with a married name, when she is known to have died in the
first year of her marriage; or with a hereditary title or title of office
that changes over time, and therefore provides a clue to the dating of the
letter). Would this note be a Note on Production Statement (2.17.6) and
also an item-specific note, or just the former?

I tried to make these examples as simple as possible, but reading them
over, I realize that the second example could also be considered a Note on
Statement of Responsibility (signatures are not treated as statements of
responsibility, but notes on resources without statements of responsibility
are covered under this instruction), while the first example, with very
little tweaking, could also justify a Note on Custodial History (2.18).
This doesn't mean that it's not a good idea to make notes more element
specific, but as several contributors have noted, it's sometimes tough to
separate the information out neatly. Maybe a one to many relationship
between notes that refer to several elements would be the answer.


Liz O'Keefe

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu>
wrote:

>  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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *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:* Wednesday, May 06, 2015 11:22 AM
> *To:* 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
> <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
> *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
> <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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Elizabeth O'Keefe
Director of Collection Information Systems
The Morgan Library & Museum
225 Madison Avenue
New York, NY  10016-3405

TEL: 212 590-0380
FAX: 2127685680
NET: eokeefe at themorgan.org

Visit CORSAIR, the Library's comprehensive collections catalog:
http://corsair.themorgan.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150514/33b47879/attachment-0001.html>