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

Tue Dec 26 11:08:49 MST 2017

I am in favor of retaining the interpolation of inaccuracies, mostly because in the grand world of shared metadata, the explanatory note is not always shared. Whether we like it or not, the transcription fields get shot out into the metadata web, sometimes without context (and certainly without cataloging code attached). Something can easily get misrepresented out there and it takes a very dedicated and skilled person to drill back down through the metadata threads to see what’s ACTUALLY going on.

Dorothy Auyong
Principal Catalog Librarian/Archivist
Acquisitions, Cataloging & Metadata Services
Henry E. Huntington Library
dauyong at huntington.org<mailto:dauyong at huntington.org>

From: DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Will Evans
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 1:12 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] RBMS PS Review Q2.5: Transcription of Inaccuracies

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<http://www.bostonathenaeum.org/>

From: DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<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:
[cid:image001.jpg at 01D37E31.84D07E70]

From: DCRM-L [mailto: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<mailto: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<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<mailto: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<tel:(858)%20534-6759>
mmascaro at ucsd.edu<mailto: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/20171226/ab73cdff/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 63648 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20171226/ab73cdff/attachment-0001.jpg>