I have always been told that good data outlives poor systems. Still, you seem to know what you're doing. I'm curious how you're going to manage the de-siccing. You will have to, I presume, look at each instance and decide what to do about it, case-by-case, as (as previously mentioned) some "sic's" are not necessarily errors, just words or phrases likely to be interpreted as such.
Re: Thomas' comment, "and in fact most users are none the wiser and so assume [sic] is part of the title." I'm curious where you get this fact. It may be a function of different user bases (something RDA is supposed to be more hospitable to than earlier codes) but I doubt our patrons have trouble understanding what "sic" means, particularly when it appears right next to a word that looks off. It is after all a rather ubiquitous feature in academic prose. (And if a user, say an undergraduate, doesn't understand it... why, there's an opportunity to learn something useful from the catalog. Imagine that.) Anyways that's enough for now from me on this topic of vital concern to probably nobody. I appreciate people taking the time to read it and respond. Like most RDA issues, this cake was baked years ago. The mandate is, "Take what you see" and any situation in which the cataloger might be expected or allowed to use their own knowledge and interpretive skills to provide a more useful transcription of a title page is deprecated. b Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Gary L Strawn Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 3:50 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles The real-world problem that we have to deal with is that our underdeveloped systems often do not understand that "[sic]", phrases beginning "[i.e.", and similar intrusions, are things that should be skipped for indexing purposes. (The NOTIS system did actually know enough to skip these, but that's only one of the many things we've lost in moving forward ...) If we give 245s in this fashion: Litte [i.e., little] whale and the ice Chistopher [sic] Plantin's books of hours Then the left-anchored title index (or keyword phrase) may well contain "LITTE I E LITTLE WHALE AND THE ICE" and "CHISTOPHER SIC PLANTINS BOOKS OF HOURS", which represent neither the title on the item nor the "corrected" title. We just completed a project here to remove all of the "[i.e." constructions from 245 $a and 740 $a. ("[sic]" is coming soon, once the RDA conversion is complete.) This required a judicious addition of title access points, 240s, and notes. Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300 e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edu<mailto:mrsm...@northwestern.edu> voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306 Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.22.416 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 2:31 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles I'm glad this is still being discussed, so I don't feel like a total fussbudget for pining over a three-letter word. The issue, in my opinion, is not really whether we use "sic" or some other phrase (though I confess I find "sic" a wonderfully parsimonious way of indicating an error.) It is, as Michael Borris and others have previously stated, that the presence of some kind of signal that the cataloger found what appears to be an error is most useful when it's right next to the error. I believe this usefulness extends to users and catalogers alike. The current, "sic-free" approach enshrined by RDA forces people to compare two strings of text and play the "One of these things is not like the other game." Which may not be a problem for most titles, but could be a bigger hassle for longer titles or titles in languages other than English (for English-speaking catalogers, that is.) There is also a subtler point, perhaps, to be made. Yesterday Ian Fairclough stated, "Personally, I dislike the phrase "Title should read". Who are we catalogers to tell people how their creations "should" read?". I think there is something to this. "Sic"-ing something just says, "This is what it really said, believe it or not." It does not necessarily mean, "I know what this should say better than the author does." Which is sometimes true (in the case of typos) and sometimes not (in the case of rap artists' names, neologisms, puns, etc.) --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Joan Wang Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 3:11 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca<mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles First, I would respectfully disagree with Joan Wang's statement below. I do not find RDA to be more explicit when it comes to mistakes in title (or in any other transcribed field), but rather less explicit. First of all, I thank for your disagreement. I could not understand [sic] until I became a cataloger. I am not sure if it is because my first language is Chinese. A word explanation seems to be explicit for users. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Michael Borries <michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu<mailto:michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu>> wrote: I wish to comment on several aspects of this thread. First, I would respectfully disagree with Joan Wang's statement below. I do not find RDA to be more explicit when it comes to mistakes in title (or in any other transcribed field), but rather less explicit. There are two or three sources of typos: what appears on the item in hand, or the cataloger transcribing the information, or orthographic differences (these, of course, are not typos, but odd spellings that need to be verified). If a "[sic]" appears next to a typo, I immediately know that the cataloger found it on the item being cataloged; without the "[sic]" I must look for a 246 and perhaps also a note. If I am in the process of correcting errors in the catalog of which this is one of many, then it is not very helpful to have to hunt through the record to see what the situation is. I wonder how many incorrect "corrections" will be made because of the lack of "[sic]." In terms of adding a 240: While most dissertations are not published, many are. According to RDA, the publication is merely a manifestation of the work, not a new work. If the dissertation had a typo in the title proper, and no 240, what would then be the preferred title of the published dissertation - the title proper of the dissertation, typo and all? No, I think at this point all of us would create a 240 to link the two manifestations. It seems reasonable to simply create a 240 or 130 on the initial encounter, and get it over with. In AACR2, I don't think things would have been much better. How would a dissertation with a typo in the title (or any title with a typo) have been cited in a 7XX field? There are things that the computer makes us think about, that we didn't always have to think about before, which is not necessarily a bad thing. But what is the point of worrying about works, expressions, manifestations, and items, and uniform or preferred titles, and linkages, if it is not to create a collocations, sorts, and displays that a patron can navigate with meaning and ease? Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687<tel:%28646%29%20312-1687> Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu<mailto:michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>] On Behalf Of Joan Wang Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 11:55 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles RDA follows the representation principle. The data describing a resource should reflect the resource's representation of itself. The current way seems to be more explicit. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Benjamin A Abrahamse <babra...@mit.edu<mailto:babra...@mit.edu>> wrote: I still don't understand why the JSC saw fit to get rid of the device, "[sic]" ,for bringing gattention to known typos or other minor mistakes in the title. I think most users understand what it means, even the ones who don't know Latin. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137<tel:617-253-7137> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca<mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca>] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 11:44 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca<mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles As far as I understand it, you transcribe what you see. Just had one of those. Title was Upnashads. The record also had a 246. The whole point of a catalog is get the patron to the work he/she wants or is seeking, or may find while doing a browse by title on the computer. Do we want to help the patron or not? RDA cannot be a cataloging code for catalogers. It has to be a means to an end: "Gee, I am glad I found this. Thanks." On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Michael Cohen <mco...@library.wisc.edu<mailto:mco...@library.wisc.edu>> wrote: RDA Exercise A patron asked us to correct a typo in the title page of his dissertation. The rules are quite clear on how to handle this situation: transcribe the title page title in 245 and record the corrected title in 246. But 246 is defined as Varying Form of Title, and a corrected typo is not a variation of the real title in the same way that spelling out 'and' for & is. Rather, isn't the corrected (or intended) title actually the title of the Work (instead of the Manifestation) and therefore shouldn't it be recorded in 240 instead of 246? Please explain the flaws in this logic. -- ________________________________________________________ Michael L. Cohen Interim Head of Cataloging General Library System, University of Wisconsin-Madison 324C Memorial Library 728 State Street Madison, WI 53706-1494 Phone: (608) 262-3246<tel:%28608%29%20262-3246> Fax: (608) 262-4861<tel:%28608%29%20262-4861> Email: mco...@library.wisc.edu<mailto:mco...@library.wisc.edu> -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu<mailto:gf...@cst.edu> Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only. -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409<tel:618.656.3216x409> 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409<tel:618.656.3216x409> 618.656.9401Fax
