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

Wed Apr 4 06:53:16 MDT 2018

I quite agree with William Hale on this one. Interpolated "[sic]" is an
immediate answer to the question "Really? Is this not a transcription
error?"--a question that is either left unanswered, raising real questions
about discrepancies among copies, or answered only in a note that must be
found by inspection of the record. It is equivalent to "[thus]", but that
is not an established convention, and thus not as immediately informative.
There's also "[!]"--but that seems unduly judgemental.

I suppose "i.e." is a lost cause, despite the fact that just about everyone
likely to be interested in a rare book record will be accustomed to it; I
still feel a twinge of reader's whiplash in response to "[that is ...]", as
if the statement were being read aloud to me: it gets in the way of
comprehending the statement as a whole. (Then again, I'm a cataloger, so I
talk to myself constantly...).

And yes, the extent statement *must* admit editorial intervention to convey
correct information, which can always be supported by an explanatory note,
or even a formal collational formula/pagination statement that exhibits
some analytical understanding of the physical book.

RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
<Richard_Noble at Br <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 5:35 AM, William Hale <wah26 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> I don’t think I have ever used [sic] in an extent statement, though I do
> employ it occasionally in transcribed fields. I use [i.e.] fairly often
> when printed pagination is incorrect, as it often is in early materials.
> Not to use it or an equivalent in such cases means that the extent
> statement will not represent the actual extent of the item, which is highly
> misleading. You can of course put the actual extent in a note, but where
> does that leave the “granularity of RDA”? And it is making key information
> about the item less easy to find, which is the last thing we should be
> doing.
>
>
>
> --
>
> William Hale.
>
> Rare Books and Early Manuscripts Department,
> Cambridge University Library,
> West Road, Cambridge, CB3 9DR.
> <http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/deptserv/rarebooks/index.html>
>
> Telephone: (+44) (0)1223 333122 <+44%201223%20333122>
> Email: William.Hale at lib.cam.ac.uk
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On Behalf Of *Robert
> Maxwell
> *Sent:* 04 April 2018 00:25
>
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] RBMS PS review Q4: Extent of text
>
>
>
> Actually, I think the RDA solution is not to use “sic” at all or any
> equivalent, just to copy exactly what is there with no “on the spot”
> explanation and then explaining later in a note, if thought necessary. I’m
> not sure now often “sic” would be used in an extent statement—maybe if the
> numeral being recorded is known to be incorrect?—but I think RDA’s solution
> would be to record what’s there and explain in a note if necessary. Which
> seems like a pretty “rare materials cataloging” way of doing things, to
> represent the item exactly as it represents itself.
>
>
>
> 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 *Margaret F.
> Nichols
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 3, 2018 3:37 PM
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] RBMS PS review Q4: Extent of text
>
>
>
> I’m a bit skeptical of the idea that an abbreviation of a Latin phrase is
> going to be easier for non-English users to understand than an English
> phrase is, given that the lingua franca these days tends to be English
> rather than Latin. I do agree, though, that it’s hard to come up with a
> concise English equivalent for “sic.”
>
>
>
> Two cents,
>
>
>
> Margaret
>
>
>
> _______________________________
>
>
>
> Margaret F. Nichols
>
> Rare Materials Cataloging Coordinator
>
> Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections
>
> 2B Kroch Library
>
> Cornell University
>
> Ithaca, NY 14853-5302
>
> Tel. (607) 255-9667
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> *On Behalf Of *Lapka, Francis
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 03, 2018 12:59 PM
> *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
> <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
> *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
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=476+5th+Avenue,+Room+313,+New+York,+NY+10018&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> kathiecoblentz at nypl.org
>
>
>
> My opinions, not NYPL's
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Robert Maxwell <robert_maxwell at byu.edu>
> To: "DCRM Users' Group" <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 <(801)%20422-5568>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20180404/477e4a02/attachment-0001.html>