Proposal: Clarifying instructions for Sequences of Plates (RDA 3.4.5.9)

Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Proposal: Clarifying instructions for Sequences of Plates (RDA 3.4.5.9)

  1. Matthew Haugen says:

    I agree with LC’s suggestion about change 2b, so that it is clear that recorded after all sequences including back matter.

    I prefer CCC’s approach to 3.4.5.9.2 over LC’s suggestions.

    Rather than LC’s suggestion to keep the language explaining the definition of plate in the instruction, I agree with ACOC that a hyperlink to the glossary would suffice.

  2. Robert L. Maxwell says:

    I think CCC’s rewording suggestions are OK but in most cases not particularly better than ALA’s. I do like CCC’s extra “or” under 3.4.5.9.2 which eliminates the alternative, better than ALA’s. In that case I’ve thought ALA’s language was a bit strained (as does ACOC), though when we were putting it together I couldn’t think of a better way. I think CCC’s proposed language is better than LC’s.

    I disagree with LC on 2a. The current language is confusing, or at the very least makes the user of the instruction sit there and try to figure out what it’s saying, when all it’s saying is restating that the instruction is dealing with plates (which by definition aren’t included in the other sequences).

    I don’t understand LC’s objection to 2b and would never interpret ALA’s proposed language to result in “xii, 300 pages, 10 pages of plates, 12 pages”. “xi”, “300” and “12” are the *preliminary* (xi) and *main* (300 and 12) sequences (note “sequences” is PLURAL, there are a total of *three* preliminary and main sequences in this case, all of which would be recorded before the plates) and so the result would be “xii, 300, 12 pages, 10 pages of plates.” I think it is straining to come up with the other result using ALA’s language.

    I don’t understand what ACOC says about leaves being defined elsewhere in RDA as being printed on only one side–it just isn’t so. The Glossary says “A unit of extent consisting of a single bound or fastened sheet as a subunit of a volume; each leaf consists of two pages, one on each side, either or both of which may be blank”, which says nothing about being printed on only one side.

    Responding to DNB, this early printed resources cataloger (me) doesn’t consider the propsoed alternative as too weak, though as I said above, CCC’s suggested rewording/reorganization makes it even stronger. In either case the alternative is not needed because it is incorporated into the general rule.

Leave a Reply