[DCRM-L] Diacritic transcription in DCRMR

[Deborah J. Leslie]

This option was added during early stages of the of what we were then calling DCRM2, on analogy with ijuv. If memory serves, it was along the lines of "well, if we do this with IJUV, shouldn't we do it with diacritics too?" Conceptual rather than practical or experiential grounds. Bob makes a really good case for removing the option.

The method of transcription is really significant in how far it is used to identify variants and the like, and is even more significant with original vs normalized punctuation. I would like to see it become a required note in every record identifying it. It may seem tedious, but DCRM(G) requires that every record identify the source of the title, and serials cataloging gives a "Description based on" note. If we were to go this route, this community could come up with normative wording that is brief but descriptive enough to alert catalog users to the parameters of transcription.

______________________________
Deborah J. Leslie, MA, MLS | Senior Cataloger | Folger Shakespeare Library | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 | djleslie at folger.edu<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> | www.folger.edu<http://www.folger.edu> | Opinions her own

From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> On Behalf Of Jessica Janecki
Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 10:21
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Diacritic transcription in DCRMR

I agree Robert, it is so important to know what was actually printed on the piece!

I also feel that the easier to interpret one can make a rule, the better.  Case conversion is fraught enough, optionally inserted diacritics is really too much.

Jessica Janecki

From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>> On Behalf Of Robert O. Steele
Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 10:06 AM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: [DCRM-L] Diacritic transcription in DCRMR

Hello,
I note with some surprise that the draft edition of DCRMR includes the option of adding diacritics where they are not present on the piece at hand. Granted, this is in the limited situation of converting from upper to lower case, but I think it introduces potential confusion for researchers trying to distinguish between states or issues… or even editions, in the case of anonymous and clandestine but oft-reprinted works, such as some French Revolutionary pamphlets.
I have attached the detailed response I posted as feedback on the Public Review of DCRMR site. Please feel free to comment.
The main points: 1) Since the rule is optional, I will not know which rule you are applying, so I will not know if what you saw is really different from what I see on the piece in hand. 2) The rule only applies to case conversion, so in French EDITION can be édition, but not Édition. Why? 3) The “pattern of the text” in early modern spelling can be difficult to discern without some advanced knowledge, so I suspect anyone applying the rule will merely add diacritics where they would be expected in modern usage, which in my opinion is the equivalent of correcting spelling rather than using [sic].
Thanks for any feedback you might have.
Robert O. Steele
Cataloging Librarian
Jacob Burns Law Library
George Washington University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20211209/ab8419be/attachment.htm>