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 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [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 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 618.656.9401Fax
