| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Public Comments on Draft

Page history last edited by Manon Theroux 9 years, 6 months ago

SUBMITTED E-MAIL COMMENTS

 

Monographs vs monographic works
In I.2, replace the word “monographs” with “monographic works”. We all know that otherwise perfectly sensible people can still be startled at the concept of cataloguing maps, and the use of “monographs”, while entirely correct, will still suggest “books” to many catalogers and cataloguing administrators. A “monographic work” on the other hand suggests a work treated as a monograph, which “maps” fits into more easily.

TF: This area has been rewritten, making this comment moot. 4/5/14

Section X.2 is especially good ... the relationship of thorough descriptive cataloguing to security requirements can be made stronger, especially as we know that cataloguing of vulnerable library resources has become of greater interest due to recent high profile thefts, and is serving as motivation for funding this cataloguing. Section X.2.4 says “Is the item or collection vulnerable to theft or vandalism?” but it needs to be made more clear that if an item is stolen, police (etc) need a very specific and detailed description of the physical entity—not the intellectual entity. Consider moving this point to the preceding section, where you mention monetary value.
MT: I think we can add a sentence here, given that maps are particularly vulnerable to theft. Keeping the style of this section (i.e. using rhetorical questions), I will add a follow-up to the question about vulnerablity to theft/vandalism: "If a theft were to occur, would a detailed description of the item's physical characteristics facilitate the item's discovery and help to provide evidence of ownership?" 5/1/14


Supplied geographic coverage in title
Section I.E.8. [this is now 1E7]: supplying geographic coverage as other title information. In ISBD punctuation, other title information follows a colon, and in MARC this equates to the $b subfield. When it is necessary to supply the geographic coverage, I do so in the main title area ($a). Aside from the crucial nature of this information in the description of the item, I also consider that many machine environments truncate the title to include only the $a subfield. Putting the supplied geographic coverage in the subtitle would result in the catalogue user having no idea of the area covered in many instances. Therefore, I would reconsider this instruction.
MT: I would vote not to put the supplied info in 245 $a. I would keep it in $b for 2 reasons: 1) It complies with existing cataloging rules and 2) to avoid the need for increased use of uniform titles in the 240 field as a result of the extra words at the end of the title proper. 5/1/14


Line breaks [0G4.1?] 
The following comment is a request that you consider adding a rule about what not to do. As we know, in scholarly and commercial work, the line breaks in the title as printed on a map are often indicated by the use of a forward slash (/)¸ i.e., “A/ map/ showing the districts of/ London” to indicate that these words are written on 4 separate lines ... Of course, we don’t do this in cataloguing but I would ask you to consider adding a specific instruction not to do this.  I make this request because of the several times I have had to explain this in detail to contract cataloguing staff who are not trained cataloguers but who have been hired because of their experience in the commercial world. My key points in explaining this usually run along the lines of: (1) in ISBD punctuation the forward slash has a very specific meaning within the title and statement of responsibility field and cannot be used outside of this established context, and, lately, (2) because the rules in RDA say to record exactly what you see, and you don’t see a slash, do you? In return, I have been given the argument that the typography of the title may be a crucial element in identifying/distinguishing similar works. To which I say, fine, but you can’t do it in the 245; if it’s that important, you can put it in a note. I searched for this in DCRM(B) and found no instructions; it would be nice if we had one in DCRM(C). I know we generally don’t give negative instructions, but in this case, it would be very useful.

MT: I could see doing this if others also think it would be a good idea. 5/1/14

MT: I added the sentence "Do not supply marks of punctuation to indicate line-breaks" in 0G3.6 (line endings). 7/12/14

MT: Now: ".. line breaks." 11/16/14

 


a) Scope 1.2: please insert a space between "serials" and "are"

TF: Corrected. 4/5/14

3) Section 0:
a) 0G3.4 - I think that punctuation marks within Roman numerals should be retained in order to distinguish between any variations in printing.
MT: I vote not to change this. I see her point, of course - it was argued back and forth when DCRM(B) was being written. But I think we want to be in compliance with DCRM(B). 5/1/14


b) 0G4.3 - Variant spellings. I think that modern orthography should be transcribed in an alternate title field (246) so that patrons can locate the map under any permutation of the title
MT: We have a footnote referencing Appendix F. 5/1/14


4) Section 1:
a) 1C1 : enclosing [cartographic material[ in square brackets would certainly be superfluous if one were using the Maps workform in OCLC. Or do I not completely understand the concept of the statement?
If {microfilm], [kit], etc were to be used would we retain the #h subfield to annotate this information?
MT: Yes, we use $h in MARC but our rules do not show MARC coding or address OCLC inputting standards. No change needed. 5/1/14


5) Section 3:
a) just a general comment. I was taught that the cataloguer supplied scale in the 255 field (i.e. [Scale ca. 1:100,000]) was to be supplied in square brackets. Is this to be changed in DCRMC?

TF: See 3A2; area 3 is now not a transcription area, which is a change from CM. 4/5/14

6) Section 4:
a) 4A6.2.1 and subsequent note: Just a comment. Thank you for mentioning the problematic relationship between printers and publishers in the hand press era. This is precisely why RDA is problematic for books and materials printed before 1800 or thereabouts.


b) 4B1.1 - regarding manuscript maps. Would it be possible to include an example here for those of us who work with manuscript maps a great deal?

TF: Include example? 4/5/14
MT: In the Public Draft, we weren't using the $a for manuscripts, so I can see how the commenter might have wanted to see what the area would look like without it. Now we've changed the instruction - we are using it for manuscripts. Many of our existing examples could have been transcribed from a manuscript, so I'm not convinced we need a manuscript example, but if someone wants to propose something, feel free. I wouldn't add anything in this particular rule, though - it doesn't tell you how to transcribe, it just tells you that you can use the element and what for - but under another rule in 4B it would be okay. 5/1/14


7) Section 5:
a) 5B5. Errata leaves: (as per example) we have always expressed the errata as Errata: p. [1], 2nd count -- rather - rather than Errata: p. [137]

TF: Do we want to revise our example? I've always tried to avoid formulating a note using numbering not found in the 300 (is the first unnumbered page at the end really page 137?), as the comment above states. 4/5/14

MT: This is straight from DCRM(B) so I don't think I'd change it. 5/1/14

 

8) Section 7

a) 7B6.3.1 – as per “see” in example. Is the Latin abbreviation “Cf.” to be discouraged or may we still use this?

TF: I vaguely recall us discussing this, but I cannot remember when or why. 4/5/14

MT: We don't use "cf." in the DCRM(B) examples because we made an editorial decision to use "see". But it isn't forbidden for others to use it in their cataloging. 5/1/14

 

9) Appendix E.

a) E1.2 - Just a general question from section E1.2. Would it be possible to use “state of the plate” as a reason for creating a new record, rather than just deriving, in the explanation somewhere> This is a term which was taught to me in my training.

TF: I think our revised wording in the fifth bullet point addresses this concern. Yes? 4/5/14

b) E1.3 – “Minor corrections to the wooden block, metal plate, etc.” I know this is the “state of the plate” explanation but can the phrase be used somewhere within?

TF: We revised our wording a bit; does it address the concern above? 4/5/14

 


p. 22.  Might be a good idea to add "remote-sensing image" as an example. Quite a few very early air photos floating around that are now unique or rare. Some remote-sensing images have significant annotations.

TF: We added "remote-sensing images (including aerial photographs)" to the list of material covered (now page 25). 4/5/14

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.