Various thoughts come to mind! As a long-time library user but also a
cataloguer, I'm aware of conflicting priorities. The RDA proposals
appear to apply to ALL catalogue descriptions, not only rare books, so
we may not be addressing a specialised readership (and how do you define
a rare book to the non-specialist??).
However, a degree of abbreviation is surely acceptable ("pages" for "p."
may be sensible, but if we give heights rather than the admittedly
arcane [but sometimes necessary] bibliographical formats, should we
spell out centimetres/centimeters and add "high" ?) It is true that most
users aren't concerned with the detailed description, and many older
cataloguing rules only used a brief pagination statement. How about
foliated material, and pages or leaves numbered in upper-case or
lower-case roman numerals? As to non-Roman scripts ...
RDA presumably is intended to cover all types of material in the same
way, and that is bound to lead to compromises of some sort. Might this
be a case in point, where RDA as a whole could acknowledge that [ ]
may be used for "supplied" data whether or not incorporated in the
item? It does sounbd from some of the postings that this is already
under discussion but I'm not clear where or by whom.
Clarity is the purpose of cataloguing, and brevity can be the soul of
clarity as well as wit.
Peter Hoare
|