I wander if the issue could be covered in the principle of
differentiation. How do we relate the transcription of punctuations
included in a title to users' tasks?
Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller
<wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de
<mailto:wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de>> wrote:
Ben,
I like your emphasis on readabiliy very much.
Personally, I'm not much worried that people might mix up
punctuation in the source with punctuation prescribed by ISBD, but
readability should indeed be an issue. And I absolutely agree that
"Wollen, wissen, können" is much easier to read and understand
e.g. on a computer screen than the version with full stops
(although the latter is quite alright if you see it on a book
cover or title page). So, perhaps we really should take some
liberties here and invoke the alternative in 1.7.1, whenever we
feel that transcribing the punctuation on the source in an exact
way wouldn't much help our users. (By the way: Many discussion
here on the list make me wonder whether I'm simply taking RDA
instructions too seriously ...).
My impression with RDA, however, is that readability is not a high
priority, although "Responsiveness to user needs" is given as the
first objective (0.4.2.1). Note that there is no explicit
mentioning here of readability. Maybe we could argue with the
principle of "accuracy" (0.4.3.5), which asks us to "provide
supplementary information to correct or clarify ambiguous,
unintelligible, or misleading representations made on sources of
information forming part of the resource itself" (I think that
this principle is aimed at other cases, though). But on the whole,
I feel that the principle of representation stated in 0.4.3.4.
("The data describing a resource should reflect the resource’s
representation of itself.") trumps matters of readability in RDA.
By the way, here is another real life example of interesting
punctuation, in a statement of responsibility. The source of
information reads:
Gerd Macke/Ulrike Hanke/Pauline Viehmann
I'd say that the standard rule in 1.7.3 requires us to transcribe
the slashes as they are presented on the source. But again, we
could probably argue with readability (and also perhaps the danger
of mixing up transcribed and prescribed punctuation), apply the
alternative in 1.7.1, and simply give this as:
Gerd Macke, Ulrike Hanke, Pauline Viehmann
Heidrun
Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
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 <tel: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 <mailto: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,
Germanywww.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi <http://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi>
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Fakulty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi <http://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi>
--
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
