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

Wed Apr 4 08:09:46 MDT 2018

Please please please retain the square bracket convention in extent
statements. The compression that results enables one to focus on the
information the statement is meant to convey, without having to pick out
the flowers from weedy 16-character growths of "unnumbered pages".

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 8:55 AM, Karen Attar <Karen.Attar at london.ac.uk>
wrote:

> I agree entirely with this view.
>
>
>
> We have been thinking a bit about ease for users. Users must learn to
> understand square brackets (if they don’t already) because at the same time
> that they are looking at books catalogued by new rules, they will be
> looking at books catalogued by old rules in hybrid catalogues and also at
> printed bibliographies which employ the convention of square brackets.
>
>
>
> Karen
>
>
>
> Dr Karen Attar
>
> Curator of Rare Books and University Art
>
> Senate House Library, University of London
>
> Senate House
>
> Malet St
>
> London
>
> WC1E 7HU
>
> Tel. 020 7862 8472
>
> http://research.sas.ac.uk/search/fellow/516/dr-karen-attar/
>
>
>
> *The University of London is an exempt charity in England and Wales. We
> are committed to achieving a 20% cut in emissions from University buildings
> by 2015. Please think before you print*
>
>
>
> *From:* DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On Behalf Of *Bychowski,
> Brenna
> *Sent:* 04 April 2018 13:47
>
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] RBMS PS review Q4: Extent of text
>
>
>
> Setting aside the question of [i.e.] and [sic] for the moment, and
> returning to the original conversation about using square brackets, I just
> want to put in my vote for retaining the brackets. If we take a relatively
> straightforward statement of extent, such as:
>
>
>
> vi, [3], 10-311, [1] pages
>
>
>
> and replace the brackets with “unnumbered pages,” we end up with the more
> unwieldly:
>
>
>
> vi pages, 3 unnumbered pages, 10-311 pages, 1 unnumbered page
>
>
>
> As statements of extent for rare materials can (and do) get significantly
> more complicated than that, I think we would quickly enter into a realm
> where using “unnumbered pages” instead of square brackets would lead to
> more confusion and obfuscation than clarity. Given the nature of our work,
> it seems to me that the concision and economy of display that square
> brackets give us is useful to keep.
>
>
>
> Brenna
>
>
>
> --
>
> Brenna Bychowski
>
> Catalog/Metadata Librarian
>
> Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library
>
> Yale University
>
> 203.432.4850
>
> brenna.bychowski at yale.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
> <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>] *On Behalf Of *William Hale
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 4, 2018 5:35 AM
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] RBMS PS review Q4: Extent of text
>
>
>
> 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.
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lib.cam.ac.uk_deptserv_rarebooks_index.html&d=DwMFAg&c=cjytLXgP8ixuoHflwc-poQ&r=ic4fFhrKj_tnOO1LhvD85wkHXq5V8Ndks3a0JI9pZlc&m=3PdripfKq3B6nwBxYQXt39XD4uOX3qETYFUuBh9xfoU&s=MZ4c5xb5Z8y4YFDui2pV9noyo44R0Ry9i-kFtnQb41E&e=>
>
> 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
> <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/20180404/4bb3a275/attachment-0001.html>