Proposal: Using the mark of omission when recording titles (RDA 6.2)

Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Proposal: Using the mark of omission when recording titles (RDA 6.2)

  1. Kathy Glennan says:

    Please comment on the following issues, identified in the constituency responses:
    1. Not needed – 6.2 already covers this (LC’s position)
    – as an aside, if you generally agree, but think there should be some sort of reference somewhere in 6.2 to 2.3.1.4-2.3.1.6 for inaccuracies, varying words, introductory words, etc. let me know!
    2. Change proposed Exception to an Alternative
    3. Rewording changes recommended by CCC
    4. LC’s revision proposal for the 3rd exception in 2.3.1.4 (add 3 words & 1 example). Is this sufficient?

  2. Robert Rendall says:

    Comments from John Attig, Penn State University:

    1) I tend to agree that this is covered by the instructions for the title proper; a reference from 6.2 to 2.3.1.4 etc. would be helpful.
    2) If we agree with LC on #1, this is moot. If not, I think that this should be an exception, as it is at 2.3.1.4.
    3) CCC’s wording seems overly convoluted; it is also important that this be kept consistent with 2.3.1.4 etc.
    4) As with #1 above, I tend to agree with LC; if this approach is taken, then the revision and new example — together with a reference from 6.2 — should be sufficient.

  3. Kathy Glennan says:

    I suggest something like the following for the 2nd paragraph(?) of 6.2.2.4:

    If the initial form of the preferred title includes introductory words, inaccuracies, or dates, names, numbers, etc. that vary from issue to issue or part to part, apply the instructions at 2.3.1.4-2.3.1.6 when choosing the preferred title.

    Comments/other suggestions?

  4. Robert L. Maxwell says:

    In answer to Kathy’s questions:

    1. I don’t agree that it’s covered in 6.2. 6.2.2.4, the basic instruction, says “For works created after 1500, choose as the preferred title the title in the original language …” It does not say “For works created after 1500, choose as the preferred title the title *proper* in the original language …” Later subinstructions and exceptions do mention title proper, but the basic instruction does not. 6.2.2.5, the other basic instruction, doesn’t mention title proper at all. If we were instructed to use the title proper, there might be some legitimacy to the argument that ALA’s proposed instruction is inherent in 6.2, but that isn’t the case.

    2. I’m fine with turning the proposed exception into an alternative, or for that matter, leaving it out entirely. I don’t have a problem with beginning a preferred title with ellipses. (That is, I agree with the DNB response.)

    3. I agree with John, the CCC wording is quite convoluted and harder to understand than ALA’s.

    4. LC’s revision of 2.3.1.4 is fine as far as it goes, but I do note that this introduces an inconsistency with rare materials practice, which would presumably (depending on what the 4th volume said) transcribe the title in the new example “Operis elementaris pars prima-[quarta]”, transcribing the number from the first and the last part. Presumably the rare community would want to continue doing this, which would necessitate another exception for early printed resources. (See DCRM(B) 1B4)

Leave a Reply