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

[Kalan Davis]

To return to the matter of abbreviations, perhaps online translation tools
have supplanted the purposes of international languages, such as Latin, in
our day-to-day.  An international scholar looking for a resource in my
institution's discovery tool clicks the “translate page?” button in their
web browser.

Take the following extent statement an English language of cataloging (040
$b) dcrmb record:

[14], 240 (i.e. 220), 64, [28] p. ; ǂc 21 cm. (4to)

the web browser translates:

[14], 240 (tj. 220), 64, [28] str. ; 21 cm. (4to)

I gather that “tj” is a lexical equivalent to “i.e.”  and that the online
translation tool knows this.  Replace the “i.e.” with the phrase “that is”
and the results are the same (curiously, it reverts the phrase “that is”
back to the abbreviation “tj”).  For these online translation tools to work
in the best capacity, consistency is key which leaves me to think that a
departure from the general RDA rules might be detrimental in the long term.
 However, one might make the case that a reliance on online translation
tools might be detrimental in the long term as well. ;)  It is interesting
to note that the same online translation tool doesn’t know how to make
heads or tails of the abbreviation “sic”.

As much as I like the use of brackets for unnumbered pages (and personally,
dislike having to type those words so often in RDA).  I wonder how screen
readers react to the brackets.  I’m not an expert by any means in web
accessibility, this is more of a personal curiosity than anything and I do
prefer the brackets.

kalan

p.s. After many years a list-lurker, this is my first post to DCRM-list.
My hope it was well conveyed and constructed.


On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Person, Mary <person at law.harvard.edu> wrote:

> I agree with Richard on this. When looking at a catalog record and
> encountering something that could either be a catalogers’ typo OR a
> faithful transcription of a title page (or whatever) that question
> (“Really?”) does come immediately to mind and it’s so helpful to have [sic]
> right there and not buried in a note, which may not even be noticed.
>
>
>
> As for “i.e.” I’m one who uses it in every day conversation so am probably
> hopelessly mired there.
>
>
>
> Mary
>
>
>
> Mary Person
>
> Rare Books Cataloger/Reference Librarian
>
> Historical & Special Collections
>
> Harvard Law School Library
>
>
>
> 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 8:53 AM
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
>
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] RBMS PS review Q4: Extent of text
>
>
>
> 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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__own.edu&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=EkkQFOGUCtF2osSJj7hvtyM31K6sxQSo34Z9RQpCmDw&m=lkD4cSrM8biUZ_9N6CcLjV6L6kYujytS4sRWAfyGb_8&s=DOsN_0FQHynMydZpJtWx_leN5eejojvKBbXuWMwRPd8&e=>
> >
>
>
>
> 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.
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lib.cam.ac.uk_deptserv_rarebooks_index.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=EkkQFOGUCtF2osSJj7hvtyM31K6sxQSo34Z9RQpCmDw&m=lkD4cSrM8biUZ_9N6CcLjV6L6kYujytS4sRWAfyGb_8&s=GLfwz6epBFLkIFOlib8w_2E-IYxlXvdWcO_7IjRR9vM&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] *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://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=lkD4cSrM8biUZ_9N6CcLjV6L6kYujytS4sRWAfyGb_8&s=nOmpcwg3Heecmlja3OjPBKpSncqkX174Clge38F_5I8&e=>
>
> 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>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 

Kalan Knudson Davis, MLIS
Data Management & Access (DMA)
University of Minnesota Libraries
160 Wilson Library                     (612) 301-9521 PH (note new number)
309 19th Ave. S.                        (218) 779-9009 Cell
Minneapolis, MN 55455              kkdavis at umn.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20180404/651d250e/attachment-0001.html>