Revision of RDA 1.8.1 Numbers Expressed as Numerals or as Words

1 August 2016

Revision of RDA 1.8.1 Numbers Expressed as Numerals or as Words


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

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Revision of RDA 1.8.1 Numbers Expressed as Numerals or as Words

  1. Tina Shrader says:

    I think the overall proposal makes sense, and I support the end result of adding rare materials to the scope of the instruction and making it clear that transcription exactly as it appears on the source is the default for early and rare printed resources. I’m not sure about labeling this as an Exception rather than an Alternative, though. (Does RDA have other Exceptions? — Edited to add: Ignore that question. I was having a momentary memory lapse.)

    • Kathy Glennan says:

      For the differences between Alternatives & Exceptions, see RDA 0.8 & 0.9.

      I think the WG is correct on this one.

      • Robert L. Maxwell says:

        Relabeling it as an exception rather than an alternative, however, makes this a *requirement*, doesn’t it? Is that what is wanted? As an alternative, catalogers or agencies can choose whether to apply the instruction or not. I would think labeling it an exception takes away that choice. As a rare cataloger I would follow the alternative/exception, but I’m not sure I am in favor of imposing a requirement on everybody else.

  2. Peter Fletcher says:

    As with the other proposals that expand the exception to rare materials, there should be a good definition available to the cataloger as to when something is cataloged as “rare”. some for example, may use the exception to apply this to items that are held in OCLC by less than 26 holdings. Early printed books I think was used to define “rare” but not being a rare book/early book cataloger I am not sure. DCRMB3 states: “Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Books), referred to hereafter as DCRM(B), is third in direct descent from Bibliographic Description of Rare Books (BDRB). BDRB was published in 1981 as the interpretations of the Library of Congress for AACR2, rules 2.12‐2.18, on early printed monographs” so there seems to be an overlap in the definition. in the introduction of the same, you get this: “DCRM(B) provides guidelines and instructions for descriptive cataloging of rare books, that is, printed textual monographs receiving special treatment within a
    repository,” which could be something good to point to. Perhaps something about rare materials could be added to the RDA Glossary? There is a definition for Early Printed Resources, so perhaps also a definition for Rare materials is needed.

  3. Amanda Ros says:

    I agree that there is a possible overlap of the existing definition of “Early Printed Resources” with “Rare Printed Resources”. Depending on the clarification of “rare materials”, another possibility could be a revision of the definition of “Early Printed Resources”. While “rare” doesn’t automatically meet the “Early Printed Resources” definition of being produced prior to 1825-1830, most would consider it to be implicit. Date distinctions need to be clarified.

    • Kathy Glennan says:

      Please comment on the definition of “rare printed resources” in relation to RSC/RareWG/1, rather than here.

      In doing do, I ask you all to keep in mind that these are international (not just U.S.) cataloging rules. Sometimes the specifics need to be in a local policy/best practice/application profile (like the LC-PCC PSs) rather than in RDA itself. Such definitions need to be flexible enough for all RDA users to apply.

  4. Kathy Glennan says:

    A few style/content questions:

    * Why are the elements capitalized in the primary list, but not in the exceptions? [The WG simply copied RDA on this point, so it’s not a decision they made.]
    * Why can the exception use a shortcut of “numbering of serials” (referring to 2.6) while the main instruction lists all 8 of the sub-instruction names?
    * The two lists of elements (main instruction & exception) should have the same treatment about ending with a full stop — I think.

  5. Amanda Sprochi says:

    Kathy, do you mean the last line of the exceptions, which ends in a full stop whereas the others don’t? I think this is a good proposal (I’ll comment on the “definition of rare” issue in that space) and agree that it is an exception and not an alternative.

    • Kathy Glennan says:

      Yes. “Year degree granted” (last in 2nd list in 1.8.1) does not end in a full stop. “numbering within subseries” (last in list in Exception) does end in a full stop.

      It’s likely that the “Year degree granted” should be followed by a full stop.

  6. Nancy Mitchell Poehlmann says:

    I think the proposal makes sense, and agree with it.

  7. Armin Siedlecki says:

    I agree with this proposal.

  8. Diane Napert says:

    Adding my agreement with the proposal.

  9. Robert Bratton says:

    I consulted with my colleagues who catalog rare books, and they agree with the proposal.

  10. Jennifer A. Liss says:

    I support the proposal.

  11. Robert L. Maxwell says:

    I generally support the proposal (but see comment above)

  12. Amy Tims says:

    I support the proposal.

  13. Mary Anne Dyer says:

    I also support this proposal.

  14. Tim Kiser says:

    I support the proposal and would like to see greater standardization applied in response to Kathy’s style/content questions above.

  15. Mary Huismann says:

    I support this proposal as well

Leave a Reply