Just a question here. Why did RDA get rid of the use brackets. The use of brackets made the statement of physicality clear: those pages or plates were not explicitly numbered. Why not continue using brackets for the same purpose in RDA?
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 7:03 PM, M. E. <m.k.e.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sian Woolcock <sian.woolc...@adelaide.edu.au> wrote: > > >> We are currently having a discussion about recording the number of >> unnumbered plates in the extent field (MARC 300). The RDA toolkit has us >> confused on this. >> >> >> ** >> >> ** ** >> >> Previously under AACR2 rules, if we had a book with unnumbered plates we >> would transcribe it like this:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *300 - - ‡a 202 p., [16] p. of plates : ‡b ill. ; ‡c 21 cm.* >> >> ** ** >> >> Under RDA rules we have now been transcribing books with unnumbered >> plates like this**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *300 - - ‡a 202 pages, 16 pages of plates : ‡b ill. ; ‡c 21 cm.* >> >> ** ** >> >> We thought this was the right thing to do but upon closer inspection of >> the RDA toolkit at rule 3.4.5.9 we are not sure if this is correct.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> At the beginning of the rule it states:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *“**If the leaves or pages of plates in a resource are not included in >> the numbering for a sequence or sequences of pages or leaves of text, etc., >> record the number of leaves or pages of plates at the end of the sequence >> or sequences of pagination, etc. Record the number of leaves or pages of >> plates after the pagination, etc., whether the plates are found together or >> distributed throughout the resource.* >> >> * * >> >> * EXAMPLE* >> >> *246 pages, 32 pages of plates”* >> >> ** ** >> >> However once you get to the end of the chapter it states**** >> >> * * >> >> *“**Exception* >> >> *Early printed resources. For early printed resources, if the leaves and >> pages of plates are numbered, or if there are both numbered and unnumbered >> plates, record each sequence of leaves and pages of plates in the >> appropriate terms.* >> >> * * >> >> *EXAMPLE* >> >> *246 pages, 38 leaves of plates, 24 pages of plates* >> >> * * >> >> *Disregard unnumbered sequences of plates**,*”**** >> >> ** >> > > > As Thomas mentioned, that's a continuation of the general instruction, not > the early book instruction. There's the prescribed "unnumbered" instead of > brackets as well. > > I'll take this opportunity to point to a cock-up between the first half of > 3.4.5.9 and the last half if comparing practices between RDA and AACR2 (and > earlier). The first half says to give a mention to plates found in the > piece. Good enough. The back half, however, after the early printed > resources section, tells us to only give unnumbered leaves/pages of plates > when they are a substantial part of the piece or are mentioned in a > note--just like for text (RDA 3.4.5.3.1). So in a 300 page book we're not > supposed to give "8 unnumbered leaves of plates"? Or give it and add a > note? > > I figure this stems from someone taking AACR2 2.5B3 and applying it under > RDA both to texted pages/leaves and to plates, when I and I believe a > majority of catalogers only applied that AACR2 rule to texted pages/leaves. > > If that's the way RDA's intended to be written--which would be a big > change in practice judging from the large number of "plated" books that > contain only a few plates--I'd welcome confirmation. > >> > -- > > Mark K. Ehlert > Minitex > <http://www.minitex.umn.edu/> > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology 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.
