Answering your concerns about the corrected reprint, sure, in this case
the corrected version should be the basis for the description, and
information about the typo in earlier issues should go into a note. That
does not, however, lead to the conclusion that the cataloguer correct or
amend the cases where this did not happen. The basis for description
should be that which is issued, not that what should have been issued.
The users convenience should be considered, absolutely! But, as I said,
there are other ways of achieving that. At least, that's my reasoning.
Best regards, Gunilla
Hal Cain wrote:
Gunilla Jonsson wrote:
I find the proposed treatment better, both from a principal point of
view and a practical one. The recording of the title is descriptive
information that primarily shall support identification. For the sake of
global record exchange, it is also better to follow the instruction
proposed in 1.6.8 -- you cannot be sure that all cataloguers in all
countries will detect misprints in all languages. It's also better for
the sake of consistency in the cataloguing of materials from different
time periods. In cataloguing hand press manifestations you would not
apply the procedure you propose.
I take your point; but I'm not yet convinced.
This is indeed a troublesome issue, an instance of a conflict between
transcription (which is an application of the principle of accuracy)
and the user's expectations; we do well to remember that the user's
convenience ranks above purely technical considerations. I'm inclined
to think that literal accuracy, in the case of orthographical
variation (including typographical errors), is primarily a technical
consideration.
It's true that literal transcription of the title proper is
significant in making a match between a document and a variety of
records which may or may not be correct; this impinges on selecting
the correct record from a utility or other database (something that is
part of my daily activity), but also on database management, where
control of duplicate records loaded from different sources is an
ongoing problem.
May I pose a question: suppose that a typo occurs, on the title page
of a printed book, or the title screen of an electronic resource.
Subsequently, the publisher of the book issues a reprint with a
corrected title page, or maybe issues a corrected title page with
instructions to paste it over the original (I have actually received
such pages); or the issuing agency of the electronic document silently
corrects it. To my mind, this is a change in the label information,
not the substance, not a significant change: I see this as the *same
manifestation*. How is this best handled?
This said, it is of course necessary to provide an access point even for
the correct spelling, but that is an *access* point, not descriptive
data. I think it is useful to observe that distinction. I also have some
hesitations about discarding the "[sic]" after the typo. It is an
efficient way of telling the user that this is not a cataloguer's typo
(of which there are so many more!).
On the other hand, interpolation of "[sic]" into the text disturbs the
transcription. I would prefer that something like "[sic, as printed]"
be added to the end of the title data, before the statement of
responsibility.
One of the matters discussed here has been the requirements for
content of minimal descriptions (corresponding to AACR2 Level One).
An added title access point can perhaps be categorized as "mandatory"
for higher-level descriptions, but I doubt that staff constructing
minimal descriptions would defer to that.
Finally, while the closest possible correspondence between document
and record has to be achieved, we mustn't overlook what it is that
users bring to the catalogue. Apart from "resource discovery", which
may be by a variety of search criteria, users bring citations to their
searching. Those citations may be perfect or imperfect. While, as
text-oriented people, librarians generally take it for granted that
users have good citations which they obtain in written form, in fact
users receive citations also in speech: conversation, academic
lectures, conference presentations, radio programmes, and so on.
Citations from such sources will seldom convey inaccuracies in the
labels of the documents referred to. Access (both by searching
indexed strings and by keyword search) has to provide for such
unconsciously corrected data. Moreover, even in printed or electronic
reference lists, it's not unlikely that apparent errors will be
editorially corrected. Where does the principle of accuracy place us
in such cases?
Hal Cain
Joint Theological Library
Parkville, Victoria, Australia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
----------------------------------
Biblioteksråd / Deputy National Librarian, Director
Avdelningen för Insamling & Dokumentation (IDA) /
Head, Department for Collection Development &
Documentation
Kungl. biblioteket
Box 5039
S-102 41 Stockholm
Sweden
tel.+46 8 463 41 54
fax.+46 8 463 43 81
e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
