Heidrun Thanks for your reply. My thought is that the purpose of a modification of punctuations included in a title is to avoid a misunderstanding or confusion. So it will help users to differentiate a resource from others, and then make a selection. When we are doing cataloging, we may not know if similar resources are existing. But we would do our best to create a description that can distinguish a resource from others.
I know that my thinking is not so straightforward. It is a kind of curved :) I did have a struggling time. Most of time we understand that "differentiation" is to add something to differentiate a resource from other known resources, such as an addition of dates. So I might not be right. If you read explanations for all principles, you will find sentences for uniformity are not consistent with others. That is something I do not like :) Best Regards, Joan Wang On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller < wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote: > Joan, > > I've just reread the principle of differentiation (0.4.3.1), asking myself > whether this could somehow be stretched to include the matter of readabiliy > and the problem of mixing up different kinds of punctuation, but I don't > think it works. This principle seems to be all about distinguishing between > different (but similar) resources or other entitities. > > Something like the "principle of making things easy for the user" seems to > be sadly missing from RDA. If we look through 0.4.2.1 "Responsiveness to > user needs", we find a list of things that users should be able to do with > our data, but nowhere does it say that they should find it easy to do this > ;-) > > Maybe this is supposed to be self-evident. Still, one wonders why the > creators of RDA didn't simply borrow the first and highest principle from > the "Statement of international cataloguing principles": "Convenience of > the user. Decisions taken in the making of descriptions and controlled > forms of names for access should be made with the user in mind." > http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/icp/icp_2009-en.pdf > > I'd always assumed that RDA's "responsiveness to user needs" was the > equivalent to this "convenience of the user". But now that I look more > closely, I find that the Statement of international cataloguing principles > expresses this idea in a much more general and universal way than RDA does. > > Heidrun > > > > Joan wrote: > > 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> 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 Libraries617-253-7137 >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access >> [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca <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 >> >> >> >> -- >> --------------------- >> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. >> Stuttgart Media University >> Fakulty of Information and Communication >> Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germanywww.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 > 618.656.9401Fax > > > > -- > --------------------- > Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. > Stuttgart Media University > Faculty of Information and Communication > Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germanywww.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 618.656.9401Fax
