[DCRM-L] question about transcribing "very long dates" or "spelled-out and unconventional dates"

[Manon Theroux]

I think it probably never made it into the DCRM Edits wiki because it never
got fully resolved.

http://dcrmsteeringgroup.pbworks.com/w/page/63499593/2013-02-12
This is the page for the Feb. 2013 meeting. Under issue 2 (Years not
expressed in roman or arabic numerals; very long dates) results, it says:

   - Decision: agreement in principle; solution pending
   - Applies to: all modules
   - Discussion continues, see comments

http://dcrmsteeringgroup.pbworks.com/w/page/63635693/20130212%20Issue%202%20-%20results
This is the page for issue #2. The comments end with Erin saying: "Still
struggling with this."

As for why it was in DCRM(B) to begin with, it probably just got carried
over from DCRB.

Manon


On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Erin Blake <EBlake at folger.edu> wrote:

> According to my notes as DCRM(G) chief editor, the change from "Very long
> dates" to "Spelled-out and unconventional dates" was the result of
> deliberations by members of the DCRM Steering Group on at a teleconference
> on February 12, 2013, for pretty much exactly the reasons you give.
>
>
>
> I don't know why DCRM(S) doesn't mention it at all, but unfortunately, I
> do know why DCRM(C) uses the earlier wording: the results of the February
> 2013 meeting either missed getting into the DCRM Edits Wiki completely, or
> missed being transferred from the ACRL version of that wiki to its
> replacement at  http://dcrmedits.pbworks.com/ when the content migrated
> in September 2013.
>
>
>
> Once I get over the shock that this happened at all, I'll figure out how
> to proceed.
>
>
>
> Erin
>
>
>
> ________
>
>
> Erin C. Blake, Ph.D.  |  Head of Collection Information Services  |
>  Folger Shakespeare Library  |  201 E. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC,
> 20003  |  eblake at folger.edu  |  office tel. +1 202-675-0323
> <%2B1%20202-675-0323>  |  fax +1 202-675-0328  |  www.folger.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *James, Kate
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 23, 2016 2:32 PM
> *To:* 'dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu'
> *Subject:* [DCRM-L] question about transcribing "very long dates" or
> "spelled-out and unconventional dates"
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> I am asking this strictly out of my own curiosity, not on behalf of the
> Policy and Standards Division of the Library of Congress.
>
>
>
> I have a question about “very long dates” I’m hoping someone familiar with
> multiple DCRMs can answer for me.  In DCRM(B) 4D2.3, it says, “If the
> statement of the date in the publication is very long, substitute for it a
> formalized statement in square brackets. If the supplied date includes a
> day/month, use the sequence: day, month, year. Make a note concerning the
> source and the original form of the statement.”  DCRM(C) has this same
> instruction.  However, in DCRM(G), 4D2.3 is called “Spelled-out and
> unconventional dates” and it says, “If the date is spelled out or
> unconventionally expressed, generally transcribe it as it appears. Supply
> the year in arabic numerals in square brackets.”  Then when I looked in
> DCRM(S), I found nothing about what to do with either “very long dates” or
> “spelled-out and unconventional dates.”
>
>
>
> I do not understand the discrepancy in treatment among these various
> manuals.  DCRM(G) seems to provide the most principled approach because
> tells you to give the user the date as it appears in the source (which
> helps with identification of a particular manifestation) and then to supply
> the year in arabic numerals (which helps users to quickly determine a date
> of publication).  I don’t understand why DCRM(B) 1) describes this as “very
> long dates” which seems a very amorphous idea and 2) does not allow for
> both transcribing the date as it appears within the element and supplying
> modern form in square brackets since this is done for several other date
> styles like dates in Roman numerals?  I supposed since there is room for
> judgment about what a “very long date” is, I could decide that “Anno
> gratiae millesimo quingentesimo septimo die vero decimoctavo Maij” isn’t
> very long and transcribe it as found for a rare book.  However, that seems
> to be a less standard approach that might result in different copies of the
> same manifestation at different libraries not being identified as such.
>
>
>
> Also, why does DCRM(S) not mention this at all?  It seems like this would
> come up with rare serials sometimes, so is there another instruction in
> DCRM(S) that I am missing?
>
>
>
> The only principled reason for this discrepancy is that for some reason, a
> transcribed date of publication is more important for graphic materials
> than it is for books or cartographic materials.  For anyone who has
> experiencing cataloging all these types of materials, is that a valid line
> of reasoning? Or, are the discrepancies a result of the different DCRMs
> being worked on by different people at different times?  That explains the
> difference between DCRM(B) and DCRM(G) but it doesn’t explain why there is
> nothing in DCRM(S) or why DCRM(C) is modeled on the older DCRM instead of
> the newer one.
>
>
>
> Thanks for any insights into this issue.
>
>
>
> Kate
>
>
>
>
>
> Kate James
>
> Policy and Standards Division
>
> Library of Congress
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20160823/512a279d/attachment-0001.html>