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

[Noble, Richard]

I'm happy enough with (most lately) Erin's response, and similar responses,
regarding the extent statement--to the extent that it does represent
"extent": an explicit and complete account, in compact and conventionalized
terms, of the physical pieces making up the resource. But this doesn't
preclude more precisely descriptive or discursive notes in the record to
support, explain and otherwise go beyond a bare statement of "extent",
especially accounting for the relation of contents to component parts, or
possible variation among copies that nevertheless doesn't justify treatment
as different manifestations.

My own practice is to provide a collational formula, signing statement, and
pagination statement (including an explicit account of what is and isn't
numbered, or correctly numbered (even within  a continuous series), and
from that extract the information that is appropriate to present as
"extent". The resulting note will look very familiar to alumni of RBS
DesBib. Roughly speaking: Extent enumerates the parts; the note analyzes
and names the parts and their relationships.

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 1:32 PM, Erin Blake <erin.blake.folger at gmail.com>
wrote:

> My thoughts on the Extent of text RBMS PS draft:
>
>    - Yes, keep the square brackets convention (see what everyone else has
>    already said for the Rare Materials justification).
>    - No on "i.e." -- there isn't a rare materials reason to avoid "that
>    is" when cataloging in English. HOWEVER it's important to include the
>    punctuation that RDA uses: retain the comma after "that is" when using
>    square brackets: 564 [that is, 56] leaves
>    - Yes on removing the option of summarizing a complicated statement in
>    the Extent statement then giving the full statement in a note: if you're
>    giving a full statement of extent, it belongs where statements of extent go.
>
>
> I know that "[sic]" isn't part of this PS topic, but because it has come
> up already: it's important to keep it. The rare material reason for
> deviating is that errors are more frequently encountered in the material,
> and knowing about them is important for researchers. Identifying them
> in-line as part of the original, and not a cataloger's typo, is justified.
> It's a legitimate word in English use, there is no accepted English
> equivalent, and it's not an abbreviation. And unlike [!], it has only one
> conventional meaning (indeed, even after decades of working with cataloging
> conventions, I still read it as "Woah! Can you believe that?!")
>
> Thanks,
>
> Erin.
>
>
> ----------------
> Erin C. Blake, Ph.D.  |  Head of Collection Information Services  |
> Folger Shakespeare Library  |  201 E. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC,
> 20003  |  eblake at folger.edu  |  office tel. +1 202-675-0323  |  fax +1
> 202-675-0328  |  www.folger.edu
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20180404/b63e097c/attachment.html>