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

Wed Apr 4 08:18:05 MDT 2018

I echo Richard’s sentiments; please let’s retain the square brackets which make statements of extent so much easier and quicker for catalog users to understand.

Mary

Mary Person
Rare Books Cataloger/Reference Librarian
Historical & Special Collections
Harvard Law School Library

person at law.harvard.edu<mailto:person at law.harvard.edu>

From: DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 10:10 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] RBMS PS review Q4: Extent of text

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<mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__own.edu&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=EkkQFOGUCtF2osSJj7hvtyM31K6sxQSo34Z9RQpCmDw&m=35SOma-l3cZOCSbxzju-EuAa-zWfAVOWF8EEtj96m5k&s=lWM6DX5g_StiIkiGCL08Sb7pe9VxYPfZUNYZi-Pjddg&e=>>

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Karen Attar <Karen.Attar at london.ac.uk<mailto: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/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__research.sas.ac.uk_search_fellow_516_dr-2Dkaren-2Dattar_&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=EkkQFOGUCtF2osSJj7hvtyM31K6sxQSo34Z9RQpCmDw&m=35SOma-l3cZOCSbxzju-EuAa-zWfAVOWF8EEtj96m5k&s=l78Fyx7S0p5HVLikLvAN9teWvw7C8qkrtQ1iilCT2Q4&e=>

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<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<mailto: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<mailto:brenna.bychowski at yale.edu>

From: DCRM-L [mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:+44%201223%20333122>
Email: William.Hale at lib.cam.ac.uk<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D476-2B5th-2BAvenue-2C-2BRoom-2B313-2C-2BNew-2BYork-2C-2BNY-2B10018-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=EkkQFOGUCtF2osSJj7hvtyM31K6sxQSo34Z9RQpCmDw&m=35SOma-l3cZOCSbxzju-EuAa-zWfAVOWF8EEtj96m5k&s=oqLwsQ7FkZuwdK3Ct3Ki8jRnpXcPCtBkp_jxyCkp2gY&e=>
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/20180404/d5a55ac8/attachment-0001.html>