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

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Or as I tell my RBS students, the statement of extent—like the publication area but 245-250 in marcspeak—must both represent the item as it represents itself, and tell the truth about the item. Representation and accuracy. (Never sure how often that sinks in …)

Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu |

From: DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, 18 April, 2018 08:36
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] RBMS PS review Q4: Extent of text

​
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 7:30 PM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu<mailto:DJLeslie at folger.edu>> wrote:
There is no provision in AACR2, DCRM, or RDA for using 'sic'—a convention used in quoted text—in statements of extent.

Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> |


The logic of this is quite clear: the statement must indicate the actual extent according to the rules for the field (whether exact per dcrmb, or recording numbered portions only by less rigorous standards): so corrections are not only OK, they're necessary; merely implying that the source numeration is in some way incorrect is not, even if a note is included in the record. To which dogmatic statement I add "(?)".

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<http://own.edu>>

​
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20180418/7c618d63/attachment.html>