How is it that electronic books can have pages, but not leaves, if the main difference is printing on one side vs. both? Many of our electronic books are simply reproductions of the hard copy, and if one of those books had "leaves" in the traditional sense of the word (from a cataloging perspective), we would describe the extent that way (e.g. "1 online resource (14 leaves) : color illustrations"). Maybe we should be thinking of pages and leaves not in a physical sense, but in a strictly descriptive sense. Most "born digital" e-books still have "page" numbers and indexes referring to those numbers; how would those be referred to in the extent area without using the terms "page" and/or "leaf"? Perhaps "1 online resource (157 numbered sequences)"? It gets a little muddy. How about we query our users by showing them some RDA records and asking them to tell us what the data in the catalog record means? My bet is that it's still mighty confusing! Kevin Roe Fort Wayne Community Schools Fort Wayne IN
From: Kathie Coblentz <kcobl...@nypl.org> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:13 AM Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Leaf (new RDA glossary term and definition) To return to the original topic, the new RDA definitions of "leaf" and "page": It occurs to me that there's something else wrong with the definition of "page": "A unit of extent of text consisting of a single side of a leaf." It is too "paper-centric," or perhaps I should say "sheet-centric," since we've already established that volumes don't have to contain paper subunits only. Electronic books can and do have pages. But they don't have leaves. And e-books that are "born digital" never had them. -------------------------------------------------------- Kathie Coblentz, Rare Materials Cataloger Collections Strategy/Special Formats Processing The New York Public Library, Stephen A. Schwarzman Building 5th Avenue and 42nd Street, Room 313 New York, NY 10018 kathiecoble...@nypl.org My opinions, not NYPL's
