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

Tue Apr 3 11:15:12 MDT 2018

The user base for rare records might or might not be more linguistically diverse than others using the database—finding out would require a user study, I should think. Similar, and perhaps more forceful, arguments could be made for other user communities, for example Spanish-speaking users of many public library catalogs.

But if that is indeed the case, using “i.e.” instead of “that is” is an extremely tiny concession to the putative needs of that base—if we were in fact concerned about that we’d have to translate all the other English parts of the record, which are many, into some international language, Esperanto perhaps, or Latin. Surely if the non-English speakers using our records can manage to read through our extensive notes written in English they won’t stumble at “that is”.

Note: the question isn’t whether “i.e.” is better or worse than “that is”; the question is whether there’s a good rare materials reason for DCRM to depart from the general instructions. On this issue I don’t see one.

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 Lapka, Francis
Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 10:59 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] RBMS PS review Q4: Extent of text

I’m pleased to see all the useful input.

On the matter of “i.e.” and “sic”: Would it be fair to say that the users for a given record describing a rare item are likely to be more linguistically diverse, compared to the audiences for other resources described with RDA? If so, is that a sufficient rare materials reason for deviation – assuming “i.e.” is easier to understand than “that is” for the non-English audience ? The same linguistic neutrality might be evoked to justify the use of square brackets instead of “unnumbered.” If the premise is malarkey, the case for “i.e.” in this context is wobbly.

Francis

From: DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Kathie Coblentz
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 12:48 PM
To: 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 completely agree with Bob Maxwell on "i.e.," and I have no problems using "that is" instead. (It never ceases to surprise me how many educated people use "i.e." when they mean "e.g.," and vice versa. Or "the other way around," I suppose I should say.)

However, "sic" is awfully hard to replace with an English word or concise phrase. Of course RDA gospel calls for omitting it altogether in transcribing "an element as it appears on the source," and I can go along with that, as long as there is a note (and/or other title entry) "correcting the inaccuracy," though in the case of rare materials, I would not limit that to "if considered important for identification or access."

But in quoted material from other sources, there is no other good way to call attention to typos, factual errors or other unexpected variations in the data.

This doesn't really apply to the discussion of Extent of text, since I can't imagine using "sic" there for any reason, but it might be worth reflecting on for the rest of the catalog record.

Oh, and for what it's worth: for rare materials, I'm completely on board with using the square brackets convention instead of "unnumbered," for the sake of everyone's sanity. I wish RDA would drop "unnumbered" altogether. Anyone who cares about the distinction between pages with page numbers on them and pages with no page numbers on them, understands the bracketing convention. As for the rest, how many noncatalogers even know what "unnumbered pages" means?

--------------------------------------------------------
Kathie Coblentz | The New York Public Library
Rare Materials Cataloger

Special Collections/Special Formats Processing
Stephen A. Schwarzman Building
476 5th Avenue, Room 313, New York, NY 10018
kathiecoblentz at nypl.org<mailto:kathiecoblentz at nypl.org>

My opinions, not NYPL's

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Robert Maxwell <robert_maxwell at byu.edu<mailto:robert_maxwell at byu.edu>>
To: "DCRM Users' Group" <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 16:05:50 +0000
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] RBMS PS review Q4: Extent of text
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<tel:(801)%20422-5568>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20180403/cce534d0/attachment-0001.html>