Revision of RDA 3.4.5 Extent of Text

RSC/RareWG/3
1 August 2016

Revision of RDA 3.4.5 Extent of Text

 

Submitted by: Francis Lapka, Chair, RSC Rare Materials Working Group

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Revision of RDA 3.4.5 Extent of Text

  1. Tina Shrader says:

    Passing along a comment from one of NLM’s rare books catalogers: “Since the Exception for RDA 3.4.5.14 Single Sheet is being edited anyhow, I recommend adding an example after 1st paragraph — something like: 1 sheet (2 pages). This example would help reinforce the distinction between recording the extent for a modern item [1 sheet], which has an example, and early/rare printed resources [1 sheet (2 pages)], which currently does not have an example.”

  2. Kathy Glennan says:

    There is a stylistic problem with adding an exception to 3.4.5.2.

    If this is added here, a characterizing phrase would also be needed for the first exception, since the 2nd exception is specific to a particular type of resource. I’m really not clear on exactly how to do this.

    • Amanda Sprochi says:

      I would take that line out of the exception and add it to the end of the instruction at 3.4.5.2

      If the volume is numbered as leaves but has text on both sides, see 3.4.5.5 or make an explanatory note (see 3.21.2.11). For complicated or irregular paging, etc., see 3.4.5.8.

    • Robert L. Maxwell says:

      Just add a caption to the first exception:

      _Complicated or irregular paging, etc._ For complicated or irregular paging, etc., see 3.4.5.8.

      BUT I also had a stylistic question here, which, however, would apply RDA wide. I don’t see the need to repeat the caption in the instruction. Why not simply:

      _Early printed resources and rare printed resources._ Record the number of pages, leaves, or columns …

      instead of

      _Early printed resources and rare printed resources._ For early printed resources and rare printed resources, record …

      ??

      This is probably an RDA-wide stylistic thing, though.

      But, if this style were applied, then the first exception could simply read:

      _Complicated or irregular paging, etc._ See 3.4.5.8.

  3. Kathy Glennan says:

    How does the new exception in 3.4.5.2 relate to the exception for early printed resources (etc.) in 3.4.5.8? Shouldn’t they have the same phrasing, or at least reference each other?

    • Tina Shrader says:

      I have the same question about these two exceptions.

    • Amanda Sprochi says:

      Yes, or have a see note in the 3.4.5.2 sequence.

      Exception, for early printed resources and rare printed resources see 3.4.5.8.

      Or alternatively, in 3.4.5.2 have the exception written out and in 3.4.5.8 have Exception
      Early printed resources. For early printed resources, record the paging, etc., in the form and sequence presented. See 3.4.5.2.

  4. Kathy Glennan says:

    The phrasing proposed for the new exception in 3.4.5.2 has some problems.

    1. The first sentence is 37 words long and is hard to parse.
    a. Especially “… record the number of pages, leaves, or columns for every leaf…” (should the last word be “sheet” in this case?)
    2. I wonder if “in the volume” is really needed in this sentence — is it too restrictive? Do unbound early/rare printed resources exist?

    • Amanda Sprochi says:

      I’d make that first sentence two:

      Early printed resources and rare printed resources. For early printed resources and rare printed resources, record the number of pages, leaves or columns for every leaf in the volume as issued by the publisher. Include leaves of text, leaves of plates, and blank leaves.

      I think you need to “in the volume as issued by the publisher” to differentiate from incomplete volumes that have lost pages, leaves, etc.

    • Robert L. Maxwell says:

      Yes, certainly unbound volumes exist, but aren’t they still volumes?

      I agree with “sheet” instead of “leaf”. A sheet could be counted in terms of either pages or leaves, depending on what is going on, and so it’s more generic and less prone to confusion. “Sheet” would possibly be better in the sentence “Do not record sheets added as part of the binding …” as well.

      A clearer and possibly stylistically better phrasing:

      “For early printed resources and rare printed resources, record every sheet in the volume as issued by the publisher, including text, plates and blank sheets.”

      Or even better, if you agree with my comment on style above, simply:

      “Record every sheet in the volume as issued by the publisher, including text, plates and blank sheets.”

      “the number of pages, leaves, or columns” is not necessary since the basic instruction already told us to do that; “leaves of” in the second part isn’t necessary, either.

      The main point is the word *every*, and in the proposed text that gets totally buried.

    • Robert L. Maxwell says:

      One of the problems with the awkwardness of this whole revision package is the phrase “Early printed resources and rare printed resources.” Couldn’t that phrase simply be “Early and rare printed resources” throughout? Or “Early and rare resources” if ALA agrees to suggest taking out the “printed” as per comments in RSC/RareWG/1?

  5. Kathy Glennan says:

    In the exception for 3.4.5.3.2, the phrasing of “c)” is problematic. The introductory paragraph already states that this information will be recorded if it is “clearly integral to the manifestation”. Repeating “integral” in “c)” doesn’t really make sense.

    I wonder if adding “etc.” after “catchword” would suffice instead. The result would be:
    c) printed on a separate gathering in a resource that is continuously signed, connected by a catchword, etc.

    • Robert L. Maxwell says:

      a b and c are simply evidence to consider when deciding if the sheets are integral to the manifestation. The last bit of “c” is just a catch all to allow catalogers to consider other evidence aside from a b and c. Since a b and c aren’t the only cases, there needs to be a “d” for the catch all:

      Consider a sequence to be integral if:

      a. it is included in the same pagination sequence as the text
      or
      b. it is printed on the pages of an initial or final gathering also containing leaves or pages of text
      or
      c. it is printed on a separate gathering in a resource that is continuously signed, connected by a catchword, etc.
      or
      d. there is other evidence that it is integral to the manifestation.

      I slightly changed “d” because there could be cases where the cataloger has information that is not “born” by the resource itself.

      “b” could be further simplified to: “it is printed on a gathering also containing leaves or pages of text”. The case probably does apply to final or initial gatherings, but what difference does it make? The point is they’re on a gathering that also includes something from the main text. And “the pages of” doesn’t add anything.

  6. Kathy Glennan says:

    In 3.4.5.5, I wonder if the exception should instead be a separate main instruction paragraph, relevant to all resources.

    (By the way, I still strongly dislike the title of this instruction. “48 leaves” is not a “misleading” description for a resource that has “96 pages”. Any suggestions for rephrasing this??)

    • Amanda Sprochi says:

      Me too. I read that several times and was like, okay, 48 numbered leaves is 96 pages, but they numbered the leaves and not the pages. That isn’t incorrect. I also agree that the exception should be the rule for all resources–extent expressed in terms of leaves rather than pages is a publishing choice but is not misleading.

    • Nancy Mitchell Poehlmann says:

      “Leaf numbering” isn’t particularly euphonious, but it is descriptive. Leaf numbering, as Kathy and Amanda have said, is not “misleading,” whereas 329 on the last page when the true extent is 392, is misleading.

    • Robert L. Maxwell says:

      I strongly agree with Kathy. When 3.4.5.2 was revised a few years ago I advocated removing this because it is NOT misleading. It is *not* an example of the instruction because “48” *does* represent the total number in that sequence. Since the first sentence does not apply to the example, neither does the “When this occurs” sentence.

      Rather than rephrase,

      “48 leaves, that is, 96 pages
      Numbered leaves with text on both sides”

      should simply be deleted.

      In which case the exception for rare resources is not needed.

      On the other hand, if the example is *not* deleted, neither should the exception for rare materials be added. There is no rare-related reason why rare resources should be treated differently from other resources in this case, horrible though we think the result is.

      So either way (with or without the example) the exception should not be added. But the whole thing is bogus since the “48” example does not exemplify the instruction.

Leave a Reply