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

[Noble, Richard]

Ultimately we need to make a strict distinction between transcription--as
conscious optical character recognition--and data interpretation. We have
far too many fields in which we run up against the limitations and
confusions of trying to do both things at once. I suppose image matching
might be the way forward, since that's what transcription is aiming for, by
way of crude intermediate translation; as in the too many cases I've seen,
in the latest discussions, of transcriptions that cannot be read
unambiguously back to the source.

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 Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 2:08 PM, Gillis, Jane <jane.gillis at yale.edu> wrote:

> 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
>
> phone: 203-432-2633 <(203)%20432-2633>
>
> fax: 203-432-4047 <(203)%20432-4047>
>
>
>
> *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 <(858)%20534-6759>
>
> mmascaro at ucsd.edu
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20180108/5e4f429b/attachment-0001.html>