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

Wed Apr 4 10:11:22 MDT 2018

I just want to quickly point out, as someone who appreciates seeing [sic] (& knowing what it means) not only in bib records but also in numerous other places in my personal research, that “sic” can be found in most if not all English dictionaries. It has definitely entered English language usage, even though it originated as Latin. Perhaps someone has already pointed this out, and if so, I want to reiterate that the argument to stop using [sic] because it is Latin is shaky.

Valerie M. Buck
Rare Literature Cataloger
Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
6742 HBLL
Provo, Utah  84602
801-422-4477
valerie_buck at byu.edu<mailto:valerie_buck at byu.edu>

From: DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Kalan Davis
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 8:39 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] RBMS PS review Q4: Extent of text

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

From: DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<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<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=lkD4cSrM8biUZ_9N6CcLjV6L6kYujytS4sRWAfyGb_8&s=DOsN_0FQHynMydZpJtWx_leN5eejojvKBbXuWMwRPd8&e=>>

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 5:35 AM, William Hale <wah26 at cam.ac.uk<mailto: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<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<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=lkD4cSrM8biUZ_9N6CcLjV6L6kYujytS4sRWAfyGb_8&s=nOmpcwg3Heecmlja3OjPBKpSncqkX174Clge38F_5I8&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>

--

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<mailto:kkdavis at umn.edu>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20180404/2d1eb0fb/attachment-0001.html>