[DCRM-L] RBMS PS Q4 Extent part 2

[Kate Moriarty]

Hi Michelle,


Now that you bring it up, I think I'm partial to the additional precision in your first example, "[6] pages of plates, [12] leaves of plates." I guess it depends on resources and the primary purpose of this part of the extent statement. Recording as only leaves, for example, gives a quicker way to determine that you have all plates. Recording both pages and leaves of plates, when present, more faithfully represents the item. I think the value it would add to the record to record both is worth the extra work but feel like I could be persuaded otherwise.


~Kate



[Saint Louis University]

Kate S. Moriarty, MSW, MLS
Rare Book Catalog Librarian

Associate Professor
Pius XII Memorial Library, Special Collections

3650 Lindell Blvd., #320-2
St. Louis, MO 63108

314-977-3024

kate.moriarty at slu.edu


        http://lib.slu.edu/special-collections<http://lib.slu.edu/special-collections>

<http://lib.slu.edu/special-collections>

________________________________
From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> on behalf of Mascaro, Michelle <mmascaro at ucsd.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2018 11:52:58 AM
To: 'DCRM Users' Group'
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] RBMS PS Q4 Extent part 2


One small correction…the Bibliographic Standards Committee Virtual Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 30th.



Best,

Michelle

From: DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Mascaro, Michelle
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2018 9:27 AM
To: 'DCRM Users' Group' <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: [DCRM-L] RBMS PS Q4 Extent part 2



Thank you everyone who participated in the recent discussion of extent of text provisions in the RBMS PS.  My summary of the discussion and the proposed outcomes is available in google docs (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dvdy6ZkM9EXrkU3Hszo3zX4-7EdQvASy8PeJsWaTE5c/edit?usp=sharing<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1dvdy6ZkM9EXrkU3Hszo3zX4-2D7EdQvASy8PeJsWaTE5c_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFAg&c=Pk_HpaIpE_jAoEC9PLIWoQ&r=QSy4pRGGbiThTdgoQBlcY2x2yDw8YVh-wlJwuoAA0XM&m=VXCdlcuYtdrW1R8ecXTX_KnQZyALZb9RiOjfUJIwwBE&s=rVrZyfjJ_fh5l8VtF78L5lecuTK1gRgWIEBaQWidYXA&e=>) and will be discussed further at the next Bibliographic Standards Committee Virtual Meeting on May 31, 11-noon PDT (formal announcement and agenda will be forthcoming).  Of note, in reviewing the various arguments, I have been persuaded that there is no rare materials specific reason to justify the RBMS PS varying from RDA and using “i.e.” versus “that is” to denote corrections.



And now the overdue follow-up question I promised regarding unnumbered leaves of plates.  The current draft RBMS PS for “3.4.5.9.2  Unnumbered Leaves or Pages of Plates” reads as follows:



“Always record the extent of unnumbered leaves or pages of plates. If a volume contains a mixture of unnumbered leaves and pages of plates, record the number either in terms of leaves or of pages.  Record unnumbered pages or leaves by enclosing the total number in the sequence within square brackets.”



The middle sentence, in bold, was taken directly from DCRM(B) 5B9.2 and also appeared in DCRM(B)’s predecessor DCRB.  The question arose during the Example Group’s work, whether we wish to continue this practice or if it were preferable in these cases to record the unnumbered plates in terms of leaves and pages as printed.  For example:

[6] page of plates, [12] leaves of plates

vs.

[15] leaves of plates



Any opinions are greatly appreciated.  This will be the last review question, prior to the RDA’s 3R reveal.



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/20180521/7d57413b/attachment.html>