Revision of RDA 1.10.3 (Quotations in Notes)

RSC/Europe/3
29 July 2016

Revision of RDA 1.10.3 (Quotations in Notes)

 

Submitted by: Renate Behrens, European Regional Representative

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Revision of RDA 1.10.3 (Quotations in Notes)

  1. Robert Bratton says:

    I have always had a personal preference for the “‘Quotation’–Source of quotation.” style note, but I don’t have a principled objection to allowing for the other style as well. The most important thing is that the information is understandable to users, and I think that is true in either style.

  2. Tina Shrader says:

    I think this proposal is fine, though I think it’s something of a solution in search of a problem.

  3. Teressa Keenan says:

    I personally don’t have any objections to this proposal. The important thing in my mind is that it is clear that the information is transcribed/quoted and its obvious where it came from.

    My only concern is about the option of leaving off the source if the info came from preferred source. Sure this seems like redundant information to catalogers, but the people using the bibliographic information for research etc (the students, faculty, community members) aren’t familiar with cataloging rules or preferred sources. Leaving this info out of the note may be a disservice them.

  4. Mary Huismann says:

    I don’t have strong feelings about the proposal. I’d be in favor of always including the source of the quoted material, though, for the reasons Teressa has given.

    • Diane Napert says:

      Proposals reads fine. I always give the source of quoted material and would not object to that being “prescribed” for the benefit of patrons. Also, there have been times I wished a cataloger had included it so I could use the source to look up something similar.

  5. Tina Shrader says:

    Passing along comments from Robert Rendall, former CC:DA chair:

    I agree that this revision is necessary in order to ensure that some common current practices are in compliance with RDA instructions. I think prescribing the exact form of such notes should be left to local application profiles, if necessary, so I support this revision to make the RDA instruction more flexible.

  6. Tim Kiser says:

    I support the proposal.

  7. Kathy Glennan says:

    Instead of offering the final sentence as part of the main paragraph, what if it became an optional omission? (That’s what it is functionally now.)

    • Robert Bratton says:

      Kathy, are you referring to: “The indication of the source may be omitted if that source is the preferred source of information for the identification of the resource”?

      The current language is: “Record quotations from the resource or from other sources in quotation marks. Follow the quotation by an indication of its source, unless that source is the preferred source of information for the identification of the resource.”

      That doesn’t sound like an optional omission to me. I am certainly not opposed to it becoming an optional omission! I just wonder if that is beyond the scope of the original proposal.

      • Robert L. Maxwell says:

        The proposed language does make it optional: “… may be omitted if …”; if we agree with the proposal, I agree with Kathy’s suggestion that the final sentence be labeled an optional omission (and reworded, e.g. “Optional omission. Omit the indication of the source if that source is the preferred source of information …”

Leave a Reply