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

[Elizabeth O'Keefe]

Okay, that makes sense. Though it is depressing when read in conjunction
with recent posts about item-specific data disappearing from OCLC.  OCLC
users will continue to have untrammeled access to the entire description of
a unique resource, such as an autograph letter from one non-entity to
another declining an invitation to dinner, so they can read notes like:

Docketed.
Ink blot at top of page 1.
Traces of the writer's breakfast in the margins

But if a library owns a copy of Holinshed's Chronicles with copious
annotations in Shakespeare's hand, there will be no way to know that from
the OCLC record, because that's item-specific information.  Depressing.

Liz O'Keefe


On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Noble, Richard <richard_noble at brown.edu>
wrote:

> As to the letter, is this a manuscript, which is unique? In that case the
> manifestation *is* an item, and there is no point in trying to
> distinguish between the two FRBR levels. All forms of evidence, including
> later additions to the letter as much as the physical characteristics of
> the substrate, are item level, but tagged as general because they are also
> all manifestation level: there is no distinction between what the letter
> writer wrote and what was added by later hands.
>
> As to dispositive manifestation evidence that occurs in a single copy,
> that also is tagged as general. It's essentially a reference source
> *about* the manifestation, not a statement about a physical
> characteristic *of* the manifestation. In cases of ambiguity, especially
> as regards evidence at the level of bibliographical state* that has been
> *noted* in one copy only, but may be present in other copies, my practice
> has been to add a 500 $5RPB note, or, if I've noted it in another
> institution's copy (perhaps as digitized), a simple 500 with explicit
> reference to the copy in which the evidence was observed. (No $5RPB because
> my institution is not the source of the evidence; in such cases I've often
> wished that we could drop our mask of anonymity and sign our notes in some
> fashion. Or is the $5 the semantic equivalent of such a signature?)
>
> *Unless of course the state is of such a nature as to distinguish a
> different manifestation (issue, in printed books). That requires creation
> of a new record--with fully informative notes regarding the distinction and
> possibly, especially if you're breaking a conflation, information regarding
> the copy or copies in which the evidence was found.
>
> 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 Thu, May 14, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Elizabeth O'Keefe <eokeefe at themorgan.org>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
>


-- 
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/20150514/46090359/attachment-0001.html>