My earlier justification for replacing periods with commas is perhaps a bit too
clever.
Though in ISBD, I agree, it's pretty unambiguous that both title and part-title
(or, dependent title) are part of the same ISBD element "title proper" (they
are "sub-elements" though ISBD doesn't use that term), it's less clear to me
what RDA means by the instruction to "[omit] punctuation on the source that
separates data to be recorded as one element from data to be recorded as a
different element, or as a second or subsequent instance of an element." If
they meant specifically "ISBD elements" they should have said so.
The instructions at 2.3.1.7 certainly seems to treat title and part title as
independent elements ("if these two titles are grammatically independent of
each other, record the common title, followed by the title of the part,
section, or supplement. Disregard the order in which the parts of the title are
presented on the source of information").
But, "Leave out punctuation which could be mixed up with prescribed ISBD
punctuation, and then add some other punctuation for clarity" is really,
exactly what I think catalogers should do. I would go even further--assuming
that RDA's scope expands beyond ISBD-formatted description--and say, "Omit or
add punctuation as needed for clarity", and leave it up to the cataloger, or
cataloging agency, to decide how best to do this. (I.e., the alternative to
1.7.1ff.)
This will certainly lead to some incosistency. Punctuation doesn't effect
indexing, so it's a matter of readability. And different catalogers will have,
I suspect, different (for lack of a better term) aesthetic sensibilities when
it comes to making something readable. But I'm not sure there is a benefit to
consistency if it hinders catalogers' abilities to record information in a way
that they think is most useful to their community.
In my cataloger's judgment, "Wollen, wissen, können" does a better job than,
"Wollen. Wissen. Können" of communicating what appears on the t.p.: a single
three-word title. I can justify that (as I did) by citing a conflict with ISBD
punctuation, but that is largely after-the-fact.
--Ben
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137
-----Original Message-----
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 12:28 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Periods in titles
Ben,
> "in RDA there is only a possbility to add punctuation, but not to change it."
>
> It seems to me that since the full-stop is used in ISBD to separate Title
> proper from Part/section title, it can be considered "punctuation on the
> source that separates data to be recorded as one element from data to be
> recorded as a different element" and omitted. Then we can add the comma's,
> under the rubric "Add punctuation, as necessary, for clarity."
Hm, that's something more to think about. It seems that you and I interpret
"punctuation on the source that separates data to be recorded as one element
from data to be recorded as a different element or as a second or subsequent
instance of an element" quite differently.
I had puzzled it out like this: If there is punctuation (of any kind) on the
source of information between things that we record as two elements, it is
disregarded. An example for punctuation on the source between two different
elements would be e.g. a dash between something that is recorded as title
proper and something that is recorded as other title information. An example
for punctuation between two instances of the same element would be e.g. a slash
or a comma between two places of publication. My understanding is that in these
cases we simply ignore the dash, slash, comma (or whatever it is) and record
the elements without it. If we use ISBD punctuation, of course we then have to
add the prescribed punctuation between these elements.
So, I wouldn't leave out the full stop just because it is used in ISBD in a
special way. Your reading, on the other hand, is (if I understand it
correctly): Leave out punctuation which could be mixed up with prescribed ISBD
punctuation, and then add some other punctuation for clarity.
I've got to think on this some more ...
By the way, I don't like the instruction in 2.3.1.7 (and other similar
ones) one little bit, where it says: "Use a full stop to separate the common
title from the title of the part, section, or supplement."
Doesn't RDA claim that it is a content standard, and as such doesn't prescribe
a certain way of display (see RDA 0.1: "a clear line of separation has been
established between the guidelines and instructions on recording data and those
on the presentation of data")? But what else is the full stop here if not a
matter of display? In my opinion, the rule should only express something like
this: If the conditions described in 2.3.1.7 apply, "record the title of the
part, section, or supplement together with the common title". How this is then
presented should be left to the cataloguing agency. If ISBD is followed, then
the rules given in Appendix D apply (see D.1.2.2). But if an agency chooses not
to use ISBD, and instead display the information differently (e.g.
by showing the title of the part below the common title), this should be
acceptable in RDA as well. But as the rule in 2.3.1.7 stands, it is not.
Oups, it seems I've wandered somewhat from the subject. Sorry about that.
Heidrun
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart,
Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
