[DCRM-L] FW: gatherings signed in -- DRAFT Does this get to what we want?

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Thanks, Joe, Michelle, and Liz. The section on non-roman signatures was new in DCRM(B), and those working on it developed the instructions from scratch. I had cataloged modern books in Russian and maybe a dozen old books in Church Slavic when I was at Yale; Joe is an experienced Russian cataloger; and we consulted Daniel Rettberg, a Hebrew cataloger. Between us, we may have known of a few examples of non-roman books signed alphabetically, but it was clear that numerical sequences rather than alphabetic sequences were the traditional norm.

As Liz explains, numbers are created using alphabetic characters, but they are nevertheless numbers. I found one of my old records: http://hdl.handle.net/10079/bibid/4111579. I didn't record any signatures—probably because no instructions existed at the time—but the publication date and foliation are expressed in the traditional way. My note reads "Imprint date and foliation expressed in Church Slavic characters," although there might be better ways of wording it.

One consequence of accommodating nonroman signatures is that we had to make adjustments to Bowers/Tanselle. It would be incorrect and misleading in library cataloging to record unsigned preliminaries as π, even if we had the typographical facilities: in DCRM(B), the use of π in the formula means that the gathering is signed with the Greek character π.

I don't have experience with right-to-left languages, and went back and forth on how to include right-to-left sequences embedded in left-to-right text. I think we should accept the conventions—or the advice, if there aren't conventions—of catalogers experienced in those languages. I do regret that we made the table in 7B9.10 read left-to-right. I remember that there was discussion about it, also that I had a lot of trouble formatting that table. It was a long time ago, but I have a vague memory of being up very late at night, trying to reformat the table right-to-left, but somehow messing things up and losing work. It could be as simple a reason as that I ran out of time in 2007, and we didn't think to revisit it for the 2011 revision.


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

From: DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Mascaro, Michelle
Sent: Thursday, 24 May, 2018 17:59
To: DCRM Users' Group
Cc: Miraglia, Elizabeth
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] FW: gatherings signed in -- DRAFT Does this get to what we want?

To further the discussion…I asked my UC San Diego colleague Liz Miraglia, who has experience cataloging Hebrew, for her opinion on the questions posed by the Examples Team (see below).   I would welcome any additional comments regarding recording nonroman signatures.  The task force that wrote the draft RBMS PS did not make any changes from DCRM(B) 7B9 in regards to how signatures are recorded.

Liz Miraglia, Head of Books and Serials Metadata and Assistant Program Director of Metadata Services, UC San Diego Library:


I think a large part of the instructions and resulting confusion come from the fact that with Hebrew and several other languages the numbers are actually just letters that have been assigned a numerical value and so for Hebrew, until you get past 10 signatures, there’d be no way to tell from the transcription whether the sequence is alphabetical or numerical. The note in the email below is a good example of where this gets confusing: the cataloger has noted that the signatures are in "Hebrew characters" and "Arabic numerals," but based on the way the characters are recorded in the note, they're actually Hebrew numerals ("yod-bet" is not a letter). Lastly, the DCRM also indicates that if it’s unclear whether a sequence is alphabetical or numerical to treat it as numerical, which also reinforces the idea that many Hebrew sequences would go un-transliterated.



The record from which that note comes is also not RDA or DCRM and there’s precedent for writing the name of the non-Latin character in brackets when it stands alone (I’m looking at LC-PCC PS 1.4, “Greek and Other Non-Latin Script Letters, Ideographs, etc.”), and that’s probably why there are the names of the characters/numbers instead of an actual transcription of any kind.



I'd fully support transcribing/transliterating in the original language where possible, but the instructions need to be clear about how notes are structured so that people don’t use phrases like “Hebrew characters” when they mean “Hebrew numbers” and such, and there are going to be cases where it really is unclear/impossible to know. Just as a finicky thing, it bothers me that in the example in 7B9.10 with Hebrew letters that it reads "ש-א" since Hebrew reads right-to-left and this is basically the same as saying that the signatures go from S-A. So if there's a large overhaul of transcribing non-Latin signature notes, it might be worth asking whether they should be recorded in compliance with the reading order of the language in which they appear or in the reading order of the language of cataloging.



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





From: DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Joseph Ross
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 10:59 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] FW: gatherings signed in -- DRAFT Does this get to what we want?

Ellen,

The reason for recording Hebrew and Greek and Cyrillic numerals by Arabic numerals but indicating that they are given in Hebrew or Greek numerals is that it is not always obvious that this is a numeric signature rather than an alphabetic one, especially if it is a small book with less than 11 quires.  And that would thus change the understanding of the structure of the work.  I don't see a problem with recording the vernacular numerals as long as one does make clear that they are numerals and not alphabetic characters.

Most of the early Hebrew and Cyrillic signatures are numeric rather than alphabetic even after the invention of printing.

I hope I am clear.  Please let me know if you have additional questions or further clarification.

Joseph Ross
Rare Book Cataloger
University of Notre Dame

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 10:37 AM, Cordes, Ellen <ellen.cordes at yale.edu<mailto:ellen.cordes at yale.edu>> wrote:
Dear DCRM(B) catalogers,

We who are not knowledgeable about Hebrew are asking for your help. What has been your understanding/practice in applying, briefly summarized for quick reference,

1)  DCRM(B) 7B9.6. Concurrent signatures, provide both sets of signatures in a note.
2)  DCRM(B) 7B9.7. Nonroman signatures (numeric sequence), represent the characters using Arabic numeration. Note parallel numeration using another script.
3)  DCRM(B) 7B9.8. Nonroman signatures (alphabetic sequence), transcribe in original script (if possible) or in Romanized form.
4)  DCRM(B) 7B9.9-10. Use Greek or Hebrew  alphabetic signatures, use the 24-letter (Greek) or 22-letter alphabet (Hebrew),  transcribe in original script (if possible) or in Romanized form.
5) DCRM(B) 7B9.9-11. Other nonroman alphabetic signatures, do not assume standard signing pattern; give first and last characters in each sequence, followed by total count.

DCRM(B) tells us if nonroman characters are accompanied by parallel numeration, just note it.
Example from DCRMB 7B9.7: Signatures (in parallel Hebrew and Arabic numerals): pi ⁸ 1-4 ⁸

And yet, we find examples such as:  Signatures in Hebrew characters and Arabic numerals: 1[alef]-12[yod-bet]⁶ (1[alef]₂ verso blank, 12[yod-bet]₆ verso blank)

Why are we not recording both sequences when there are parallel instances? And second, why are we instructed in most cases to transcribe in original script EXCEPT in the case of nonroman numeric sequences?  Would we not want to record original script in all cases or transliterate?


RDA Examples Group

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20180525/70577aaa/attachment-0001.html>