[DCRM-L] RBMS PS Review Q2.5: Transcription of Inaccuracies

Wed Dec 20 14:12:00 MST 2017

I too am in favor of retaining the interpolation of inaccuracies in titles
for reasons articulated by Helena and those outlined in the initial post--
inaccuracies are not uncommon in early print materials, and it is important
for our users (including other catalogers!) to be able to readily identify
that the error is on the piece itself and not introduced by the cataloger.
Additionally, I’m troubled by the language in the RDA rule: “*if considered
important*, the cataloger may make a note, correcting the inaccuracy.”
Haven’t our users always considered it important to flag these
inaccuracies. Nevertheless, should the practice of interpolation of
inaccuracies in titles is to be abandoned, I would at least like to see a
RBMS PS stating that a note correcting the inaccuracy be mandatory.

I would not, however, be in favor of the proposed comprise. As others have
noted, the inconsistent approach across cataloging agencies would likely
lead to confusion.

Best,

Will

*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*

Will Evans

National Endowment for the Humanities

Chief Librarian in Charge of Technical Services

Library of the Boston Athenaeum

10 1/2 Beacon Street

Boston, MA   02108

Tel:  617-227-0270 ext. 243

Fax: 617-227-5266

www.bostonathenaeum.org

*From:* DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On Behalf Of *Zinkham,
Helena
*Sent:* Tuesday, December 19, 2017 6:46 PM
*To:* 'DCRM Users' Group'
*Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] RBMS PS Review Q2.5: Transcription of Inaccuracies

I’d like to see the option remain to flag inaccuracies in titles.

In preparing DCRM (G), we debated a long while about when text on a picture
should be transcribed as a title and when to consider textual information
to be a subject annotation or identification note.  Conclusion:  Transcribe
text visible on items, because users often consider printed or hand-written
text to be a title, even if it’s incomplete or inaccurate. If a user has
seen the picture before, they’ll look for it by the visible textual
information.  This approach works well most of the time.

There are more than a few examples, however, where a printmaker or
photographer got key parts of a title wrong. For that circumstance, DCRM
(G) 0.G7.1 allows for interpolation of the correct information.   A classic
example is this glass negative, in which the words “Royal Palace, Warsaw”
are etched in the plate.   The building shown in the photo is actually the
Kremlin Palace in Moscow.   Another user behavior is copy/pasting whatever
title appears in an online catalog as the title for the image when they
reproduce it in their own lecture, article, web page, etc.    Putting the
accurate information that identifies the building in a note, without any
flags in the title about inaccurate information, seems too misleading.  (To
look at the photo, go to
http://cdn.loc.gov/service/pnp/ggbain/19600/19657v.jpg )

Another example:   Title: Bands of sheep [i.e. cattle] on the Gravelly
Range at the foot of Black Butte, Madison County, Montana
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2017878798/

This exception to RDA seemed to be  a ‘rare materials need’ because it
happens chiefly with historical items that have survived in only one or a
few copies.  To this day, of course, newspaper photo captions have errors
in them, but it’s not usually the whole title that’s wrong anymore, or, a
switched caption is quickly corrected.  It’s the rare historical picture
survivors that most need the warning mechanism.

DCRM(G) text:

*From:* DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
<dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>] *On Behalf Of *Noah Sheola
*Sent:* Tuesday, December 19, 2017 3:11 PM
*To:* DCRM Users' Group
*Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] RBMS PS Review Q2.5: Transcription of Inaccuracies

I'm more in favor of falling in line with RDA on this one. If the
inaccuracy is corrected or commented upon in a note, it should be clear
enough to the user that the inaccuracy appears on the item itself and is
not a cataloger's error. I'm not crazy about the compromise in the current
draft (it's a compromise, so that is to be expected, I suppose). If there
are benefits in continuing to permit interpolated corrections at the
cataloger's discretion, I am not convinced the inconsistency across
cataloging agencies is worth it.

- Noah

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu>
wrote:

We’d really like to hear from the community on this question – especially
from current BSC members and anyone who was not on the task force.

This may be the only area where the draft RBMS Policy Statements are
clearly at odds with RDA guidance (of if not the only area, the area where
they are *most* at odds). Do you agree with the outcome? Does it need
clarification? Would you favor a different approach?

Francis

*From:* DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On Behalf Of *Mascaro,
Michelle
*Sent:* Wednesday, December 13, 2017 2:22 PM
*To:* DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
*Subject:* [DCRM-L] RBMS PS Review Q2.5: Transcription of Inaccuracies

As a follow-up to the initial discussion topics on transcription that I
posted last week, I would like to solicit some discussion on the
transcription of inaccuracies (RDA 1.7.9).  Under RDA, inaccuracies and
misprints on the source are transcribed as, and, if considered important,
the cataloger may make a note, correcting the inaccuracy. The AACR2/DCRM
practice of using interpolations, such as sic and i.e., to note/correct the
inaccuracy within the transcribed element is not permitted. The rationale
being since transcribed fields are manifestation level elements, their
purpose is to identify how the manifestation represents itself and
corrections for access, etc., belong elsewhere.

Whether there is a rare materials reason for the RBMS Policy Statements to
vary from RDA and continue to follow the AACR2/DCRM practice of correcting
transcribed inaccuracies via interpolation, prompted several discussions
within the task force. Some of the arguments made for continuing
interpolation included that inaccuracies are not uncommon in early print
materials, and it is important for our users to be able to readily identify
that the error is on the piece itself and not introduced by the cataloger.
Members of the task force were split on this issue, and whether the
practice of interpolation was too much of a departure from RDA proper to be
justified.

As a compromise, in the current draft, the default approach is to follow
RDA (correct inaccuracies in notes) with an alternative to provide
correction via sic. or i.e. within the transcription for catalogers
interested in doing so. (The argument for using Latin abbreviations is that
they are common usage in the rare materials bibliography and known to our
users (RDA principle 0.4.3.7)).  One concern that has since been raised is
by allowing two options, the transcription for the same resource would be
different depending on if the cataloger is electing to follow the
alternative or not.

Since this is one of the most significant variations from RDA proposed in
the RBMS PS, I would like to extend this discussion on how the PS should
handle the transcription of inaccuracies to the broader community and
solicit your thoughts.  Comments to  the questions I posed last week are
still encouraged as well.

Also, attached is an updated version of the RBMS PS to 1.7, with some
improved examples from the examples group.  With the holidays approaching,
this will be the last discussion question I post before the new year.

Best,

Michelle Mascaro

Head, Special Collections Metadata

University of California, San Diego

(858) 534-6759 <(858)%20534-6759>

mmascaro at ucsd.edu

-- 

Noah Sheola

Special Collections Cataloging Librarian

Burns Library

Boston College
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20171220/e99616cd/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 63648 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20171220/e99616cd/attachment-0001.jpg>