[DCRM-L] DCRM Revision: Transposition Notes

[Mascaro,Michelle J]

The DCRM Revision Task Force is currently looking at the matter of transposition and the noting thereof.  We have had some preliminary discussion within the task force and would like to expand the discussion to the rare materials cataloging community at large.
 
In DCRM, there are numerous guidelines concerning transposition (i.e., noting when an element’s position on the title page differs from ISBD order). In RDA (which is indifferent to the order of data elements) the concept of transposition is almost entirely absent (and completely so for attributes concerning Manifestations) [1].
 
While the DCRM revision can certainly carry forward with the tradition of using notes to alert the user to transpositions, we have some questions about user interpretation of transposition notes (or the absence there of) that merit further discussion.  In the absence of transposition notes, do researchers presume the OPAC displays transcribed elements in the order that they are found on the source? This would assume that OPAC displays abide by conventions of ISBD presentation of data elements. Many do, but others do not. (For example, OhioLINK displays imprint information (area 4) before edition information (area 2), see http://olc1.ohiolink.edu:80/record=b30579563~S0). Future systems may make more drastic changes in display order. 
 
Alternatively, perhaps users are not associating the base order of elements on the piece with the order the elements are displayed on the OPAC screen but with the typical order that elements appear on a title page.  For example, regardless of what order the OPAC may display elements, the user assumes the edition statement appears before the imprint statement, but after the title, on the source, unless otherwise noted.  This seems like a large assumption to make of all researchers, but possibly a reasonable expectation of researchers, who are interested in the placement of information on the original title page (and who may not necessarily trust OPAC display orders). 
 
There is a sound principle behind the practice of transposition notes in DCRM, which aim to reflect the resource’s representation of itself (this, in turn, serves identification).    But the question arises, does the current DCRM practice of transposition notes fully succeed in conveying the order of the elements on the title page to the user? Is it based on assumptions of OPAC element display order (that are outside of our control), or users having an understanding of ISBD order? Is there a better way to do this?  (I am more and more liking the idea of developing systems that provide links to title page images.)
 
 [1] See the RDA FAQ: http://www.rda-jsc.org/archivedsite/rdafaq.html#9-5
9.5 If ISBD will no longer be mandatory, will RDA provide instructions for the order of descriptive cataloguing data elements?
RDA identifies the data elements used for descriptive cataloguing and lists them in an order similar to that found in AACR2. RDA does not provide instructions on the order the elements are to be given in the record (this is governed by encoding standard use); or the order in which they appear in a catalogue display. However, if a library, consortium, or metadata community decides to continue to use ISBD, it most certainly has the option to do so.

Sincerely,

Michelle Mascaro
Associate Professor of Bibliography
Special Collections Cataloger and Coordinator, Cataloging Services
University Libraries
The University of Akron
Akron, OH 44325-1712
Bierce Library Office: 330-972-2446
Archival Services Office: 330-972-6830
http://www.uakron.edu/libraries/