I have been trying to figure out how end punctuation in MARC 21 is applied in RDA in combination with ISBD and my conclusion is that the editors of RDA & the LCPS decided to make using ISBD with RDA so complicated that the cataloging world would hasten to abandon ISBD, which I assume is one of RDA's hidden agendas. With ISBD in MARC, the initial punctuation of an area is entered in the preceding MARC field, which makes combining ISBD with MARC such a headache.
It appears to me that RDA D.1.2.1 is saying that since the separate paragraphing of the notes is optional, and notes & ISBN by default are not preceded by a period space dash space in the RDA rule, then normally the 300 ends with a period if it precedes the series area but not if it precedes a note or ISBN or nothing. Only the area in 300 could have a scenario where there was no subsequent area beginning with period space dash space. Which is what the LCPS 1.7.1 is saying, so the North American paragraphing (card catalog legacy) is therefore being ignored (at least in the LCPS). However, note that the LCPS is written so that a 300 field ending with an abbreviation does not result in 2 periods if there is a series, which I think would happen if D 1.2.1. was followed to the letter. RDA would then seem to be leaving the end punctuation of notes up to the cataloger or cataloging agency, and the LCPS provides guidelines. The LCPS does something similar For field 250, an edition statement ending with an abbreviation would end with 2 periods per D.1.2.1; the LCPS allows the abbreviation period to do double duty (the LCPS also applies to 245, so if it ends with "by John Smith, Jr." you don't end the field with two periods). On the other hand, the LCPS seems to be using the card paragraphing model when applied to 260. If the extent /series areas are not considered to be a separate paragraph following the North American card arrangement, then 260 is preceding the physical description area, which is preceded by period space dash space. In which case 260 must end with a period, double punctuating if necessary (e.g. if it ended with a bracketed date). But the LCPS instruction is to close 260 with end punctuation not restricted to the period, although, again, the LCPS intentionally overrides the double punctuation situation. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation Catalog & Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Manon Theroux Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 1:04 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 300 Punctuation When following Appendix D, I think one problem is that D.1.2.8 says "Precede each note by a full stop, space, dash, space, or start a new paragraph for each." We are given the choice, so it would seem that we could either end a 300 field preceding the note area (when there is no intervening 4XX field) with a full stop or not. There is nothing in the LCPS to specify using the paragraph approach. How can we expect a new cataloger to know that it is "North American practice" to start a new paragraph (especially when most of our OPAC displays no longer mimic catalog cards)? In AACR2, this is spelled out in LCRI 1.0C but there is no equivalent for RDA. That LCRI also provided the explanation that, in a MARC environment, the "space-dash-space" part of the ISBD "full stop-space-dash-space" preceding certain areas is <supposed to be> generated by one's display software. I've been wondering why RDA wasn't written to follow the actual ISBD text more closely. ISBD says: 0.3.2.3. Each area of the ISBD other than area 1 is preceded by a point, space, dash, space (. -- ), unless that area is clearly separated from the preceding area by paragraphing, typography or indentation, in which case the point, space, dash, space may be replaced by a point (.) given at the end of the preceding area. RDA says: D.1.2.1. Precede each area, other than the first area, or each occurrence of a note or standard number, etc., area, by a full stop, space, dash, space (. - ) unless the area begins a new paragraph. If RDA had included that last bit, with the option to replace the full stop, space, dash, space with simply a full stop before a new paragraph, then it wouldn't matter if the 300 field was followed by a 4XX or a 5XX field, right? We could just end the 300 field with a full stop as we always have. I'm assuming it was simply a matter of wanting the RDA text to match AACR2 1.0.C.1? -- Manon Théroux Head of Technical Services U.S. Senate Library SR-B15 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510-7112 On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Robert Maxwell <robert_maxw...@byu.edu> wrote: > I do not presume to speak for LC's reasons, but as a testing library BYU is > following the practice recommended in LC's training documentation for the > test. In their module 2 ("Identifying manifestations") the instruction for > which system of measurement to use under RDA 3.5 says "Use > centimetres/millimetres for others [i.e., other than discs and audiotapes] > ("cm" and "mm" are symbols, not abbreviations) - use ISBD full stop after > symbol if 490 in record". In other words, if the 300 field ends with "cm" > there is a full stop if there is a 490 and otherwise "cm" won't have a full > stop after it. The lecture notes to this slide further explain "This > requirement is related to ISBD presentation of information." > > > > This seemed strange to me, particularly given the MARC punctuation > instructions you cite, but I decided to delve further into the ISBD > presentation rules and I believe the LC training instruction is correct. The > ISBD punctuation instructions, as found in RDA Appendix D.1, reads: > > > > Precede each area, other than the first area, or each occurrence of a note > or standard number, etc., area, by a full stop, space, dash, space (. - ) > unless the area begins a new paragraph. > > > > So ISBD punctuation calls for that full stop at the end of certain MARC > fields, depending on the ISBD area that follows. In ISBD presentation, the > Physical Description Area is followed either by the Series Area (if there is > a series) or by the Note Area (if there isn't a series). In North American > practice the Series Area did not begin a new paragraph, so it was preceded > by full stop, space, dash, space. However, in North American practice, the > Note Area began a new paragraph, and thus was not preceded by full stop, > space, dash, space. Therefore if there is no series area in the record, no > ISBD full stop will appear after the Physical Description Area. > > > > Now MARC as we all know is imperfectly wedded to ISBD, and so grafting in > the ISBD punctuation rules can produce some pretty arcane results, and this > is one place where this is so. This particular issue never came up before > RDA since previous to RDA there was always a period after "cm" because it > was regarded as an abbreviation. We are now learning, however, that that > period was not the ISBD full stop, but only a mark of punctuation. In any > case, I think LC's instruction to its staff and to testers not to give a > full stop after "cm" unless the ISBD series area is present is consistent > with ISBD instructions. So as long as we continue to claim we are following > ISBD punctuation rules, that is correct practice. > > > > Bob > > > > Robert L. Maxwell > Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept. > 6728 Harold B. Lee Library > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > (801)422-5568 > > > > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Christopher Case > Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 7:35 AM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: [RDA-L] 300 Punctuation > > > > Greetings all, > > This may have been addressed already, but I have seen a lot of variation, so > I thought it worth bringing up. I understand that RDA is a content standard > and not a display standard. However, I was just curious how one would > punctuate the 300 field, specifically final punctuation in $c, when > cataloging a print monograph according to RDA using ISBD punctuation in > MARC21. I know that RDA now considers "cm" a metric symbol and not an > abbreviation, so it does not require a period, and that according to MARC21: > "Punctuation - Field 300 ends with a period if there is a 4XX in the record; > otherwise it ends with a period unless another mark of punctuation or a > closing parentheses is present. See also subfield descriptions for > punctuation information." I would assume that the $c should then end with a > period (or some other punctuation). > > All that having been said, in many many many LC RDA records, the 300 $c does > not end in a period. In many others, it does. Any clue as to why some lack > the period? For some examples, see OCLC #'s 677981165, 449856066, and > 587078028 (lacking period); and 308173544, 297147712, and 468854226 (with > period). > > Thanks! > > -- > Christopher Case > Content Management Librarian > Milton S. Eisenhower Library > Johns Hopkins University
