[DCRM-L] RBMS PS Review Q2.5: Transcription of Inaccuracies

[Gillis, Jane]

I think the alternatives in the RBMS instructions are what is needed for rare materials cataloging. When we find something other than MARC21 in which to do cataloging and there is a way to say the this phrase is  transcribed, this phrase is recorded, this phrase (or word? Or number?) is a corrected one, then we might be able to follow RDA. They have made it more difficult for us by instructing us to input all punctuation, but then also instructing us that we can just add punctuation to make something clear. This makes using square brackets and ellipses unreliable. Also, if there is a typo in the title, one can always make a 246 for the corrected title. This is not possible for some other fields, like the 362 or 588. It is misleading cataloging.  One recent serial I cataloged had the "Description based on" issue as XIII, instead of VIII. It is more helpful to put XIII [i.e. VIII] than to make a note that is separated from the 588.

This is one of the problems with RDA itself. It is meant to be used in a linked data environment, which does not exist yet. Not only linked date but a much more robust cataloging system with corresponding OPAC in which you could say "this is transcribed" and "this is recorded/corrected". Perhaps something like Google translate where you can hover your mouse over the translation and the original appears. I fear that RDA will be changing every couple of years, waiting for a cataloging system/OPAC that will actually take advantage of linked data and what RDA is attempting to do.

Jane Gillis
Rare Book Cataloger
Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library
Yale University Library
jane.gillis at yale.edu<mailto:jane.gillis at yale.edu>
phone: 203-432-2633
fax: 203-432-4047

From: DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Mascaro, Michelle
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 2:22 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: [DCRM-L] RBMS PS Review Q2.5: Transcription of Inaccuracies


As a follow-up to the initial discussion topics on transcription that I posted last week, I would like to solicit some discussion on the transcription of inaccuracies (RDA 1.7.9).  Under RDA, inaccuracies and misprints on the source are transcribed as, and, if considered important, the cataloger may make a note, correcting the inaccuracy. The AACR2/DCRM practice of using interpolations, such as sic and i.e., to note/correct the inaccuracy within the transcribed element is not permitted. The rationale being since transcribed fields are manifestation level elements, their purpose is to identify how the manifestation represents itself and corrections for access, etc., belong elsewhere.



Whether there is a rare materials reason for the RBMS Policy Statements to vary from RDA and continue to follow the AACR2/DCRM practice of correcting transcribed inaccuracies via interpolation, prompted several discussions within the task force. Some of the arguments made for continuing interpolation included that inaccuracies are not uncommon in early print materials, and it is important for our users to be able to readily identify that the error is on the piece itself and not introduced by the cataloger. Members of the task force were split on this issue, and whether the practice of interpolation was too much of a departure from RDA proper to be justified.



As a compromise, in the current draft, the default approach is to follow RDA (correct inaccuracies in notes) with an alternative to provide correction via sic. or i.e. within the transcription for catalogers interested in doing so. (The argument for using Latin abbreviations is that they are common usage in the rare materials bibliography and known to our users (RDA principle 0.4.3.7)).  One concern that has since been raised is by allowing two options, the transcription for the same resource would be different depending on if the cataloger is electing to follow the alternative or not.



Since this is one of the most significant variations from RDA proposed in the RBMS PS, I would like to extend this discussion on how the PS should handle the transcription of inaccuracies to the broader community and solicit your thoughts.  Comments to  the questions I posed last week are still encouraged as well.



Also, attached is an updated version of the RBMS PS to 1.7, with some improved examples from the examples group.  With the holidays approaching, this will be the last discussion question I post before the new year.



Best,

Michelle Mascaro
Head, Special Collections Metadata
University of California, San Diego
(858) 534-6759
mmascaro at ucsd.edu<mailto:mmascaro at ucsd.edu>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20180108/ea9026a5/attachment.html>