[DCRM-L] RBMS PS review Q4: Extent of text

Tue Apr 3 10:05:50 MDT 2018

I can just about accept the argument that there is a rare reason for departing from RDA extent instructions in the matter of bracketing vs. “unnumbered”—rare book extent statements are much more likely than other types of extent statements to need to record unnumbered sequences.

However, I do not accept the argument that rare extent statements should continue to use “i.e.” and “sic” when the rest of RDA practice does not. In the first place, if 0.4.3.7 justified this it would have justified it for RDA as a whole—the rare materials community is not the only one that “commonly used” these forms, all communities commonly used these forms before RDA came along and this was not thought to be a good reason to refuse to go along with the new instruction. So that argument simply won’t wash, for me at least. There is no compelling rare materials reason in those cases why the rare rules should depart from the general RDA rules.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> On Behalf Of Mascaro, Michelle
Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 9:47 AM
To: 'DCRM Users' Group' <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] RBMS PS review Q4: Extent of text

Thank you for your comment, Noah.  To answer your question, the DCRM Task Force’s rationale for continuing the use the abbreviations i.e. and sic is that they are commonly used and known in the rare materials community, and one of the principles of  RDA (see 0.4.3.7) is that data should reflect common usage or practice.

Best,

Michelle

Michelle Mascaro
Head, Special Collections Metadata
University of California, San Diego
(858) 534-6759
mmascaro at ucsd.edu<mailto:mmascaro at ucsd.edu>

From: DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Noah Sheola
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 8:14 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] RBMS PS review Q4: Extent of text

I am totally on board with this, in general, (typing out "unnumbered" is so cumbersome, and the brackets are so much easier to read) -- but was wondering about using i.e. to correct misleading numbering. Any reason not to fall in line with RDA norms here and dispense with the Latin abbreviation?
Best,
Noah

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Mascaro, Michelle <mmascaro at ucsd.edu<mailto:mmascaro at ucsd.edu>> wrote:
I would like to resume discussions of areas where the draft RBMS Policy Statements significantly differs from RDA or DCRM.  The next topic of discussion is extent, specifically extent of text.

Recording unnumbered pages or leaves

For extent of text, the draft policy statement differ from RDA and specify to bracket sequences of the unnumbered pages/leaves (as we did in DCRM and AACR2) versus spelling out unnumbered pages/leaves (as specified in RDA).  (E.g., [8], 260, [2] pages, NOT 8 unnumbered pages, 260 pages, 2 unnumbered pages). The RBMS PS do specify to follow RDA and not abbreviate “pages.”  This is also the rare materials approach that is currently followed in the BIBCO Standard Record (BSR).   The rationale for differing from RDA is that rare print materials often have complicated pagination/foliation, and since it is important to record every page/leaf in the item, extent statements can get too unwieldly following RDA conventions.

Recording full sequences of pagination/foliation in a note when pagination/foliation is particularly complex

The RBMS PS (like DCRM(B)) specify that catalogers should generally record full pagination sequences and not employ one of RDA’s methods for summarizing complicated pagination (e.g., 1024 pages in various pagings).  One change that the RBMS PS have made from DCRM(B) is if you are electing to summarize complicated pagination/foliation sequences in the extent statement, the option to record the full pagination/foliation sequences in a note has been eliminated (see DCRM(B) 5B6.6 and RDA 3.5.5.8).  The rationale for this change is that with RDA’s granular structure, we want sequences of pagination/foliation to be consistently recorded in the extent element and not some times in a note.  For the same reasons, the RBMS PS dropped the option for recording the individual volume pagination of multi-volume sets without continuous pagination in a note (see DCRM(B) 5B18 and RDA 3.4.5.18).  RDA proper has an optional additional that pagination of individual volumes may be recorded in parenthesis after the number of volumes in the extent element (e.g., 3 volumes (xx, 202; xx, 203-514; xxi, [1], 515-800 pages), and there is currently no RBMS PS either encouraging or discouraging the application of this option, leaving the decision up to cataloger’s judgment.  There was some question among the examples editors whether a PS should be added saying to generally record the pagination of individual volumes, and I am interested in further community feedback.

Please respond to the list with your thoughts.  For further context a draft of the full RBMS PS to RDA 3.4.5 is attached.  (Nota bene! The examples in this section are still being polished.)  In two weeks, I plan to post a couple new questions related to recording the extents of plates.

Best,

Michelle Mascaro, RBMS PS Editor
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/20180403/64b6345e/attachment-0001.html>