In the rare cases when I've seen a [sic] in a display it's been a disservice
especially when it's close to the beginning of a title, as it throws off the
sort order, and in fact most users are none the wiser and so assume [sic] is
part of the title.
I have seen titles with unusual spelling that some have interpreted as typos.
("Inglourious basterds" for lack of a better example). No, I would never put
[sic] into the display for this title or the other examples I've seen.
RDA's focus is "take what you see, accept what you get". That is indeed simpler
for both catalogers and endusers, in terms of clarifying expectations when
confronted with the data of a transcribed element.
Utilizing notes, or annotations on other elements, is something that can and
should be fixed in the display. Adding corrected titles satisfies keyword
searching needs, as well as title browse lists. What's left is a rather narrow
gap of meeting a workflow requirement in spotting problems in the catalog, but
surely there are other ways of doing this.
Thomas Brenndorfer
Gueph Public Library
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: March-08-13 3:31 PM
To: 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
