I have a general concern about the relationship between transcription rules and the addition of contextual information as it is represented in RSC/Secretary/2022/4.
Having the 'Local and larger place names' separated from the transcription rules, suggests that there is not a relationship between which transcription guidelines someone is following and how or whether they should record a larger place name to provide disambiguation. The concern is that at that point, regardless of which transcription option someone is following, they are no longer transcribing if they choose to record a 'larger place name that is not present on the manifestation'. Perhaps this guidance should be in the transcription guidelines. In general, the existing option of recording both the local and larger place names if they are on the manifestation also seems unnecessary, if the cataloger is already transcribing the place name.
------------------------------
Jeanette Norris
Manager, Monographic Latin Script Cataloging Unit
Yale University Library
She/Her/Hers
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: Sep 06, 2022 09:27 AM
From: Amanda Sprochi
Subject: Feedback comment: RSC/Secretary/2022/4
Thanks John!
aks
Amanda K. Sprochi, MA, MLIS, AHIP
Cataloger/Librarian IV
University Libraries
The University of Missouri
520 S 9th St
60 Ellis Library
Columbia, MO 65211
(573) 882-0461
sprochia@health.missouri.edu
she/her/hers
The University of Missouri occupies the
traditional land of the Osage, Kiikaapoi,
Peoria, and Očhéthi Šakówiŋ peoples.
Original Message:
Sent: 9/6/2022 8:02:00 AM
From: John Myers
Subject: Feedback comment: RSC/Secretary/2022/4
I reviewed the proposal RSC/Secretary/2022/4. The proposal, in bringing the issue of adding larger place names to the recording instructions, has brought to my attention a further anomaly concerning the recording of full addresses, Namely, it appears that there is a missing explicit condition for the recording of such full addresses. I append an image of the clean copy for the current changes from the proposal to the Place of publication guidance. Similar issues are present with the other place statements for manifestations.
As you can see, there are 2 conditions and 3 options. However, the last Option, "Record the full address," does not seem to correspond to the preceding Condition of:
A value of Manifestation: place of publication is a local place name (city, town, etc.)
A name of a larger place is present on the manifestation.
There is no language in the Condition to address the presence of a full address, given that the parenthetical qualification/clarification to "local place name" seems to articulate local place name at a local jurisdictional level rather than a full address level.
For consistency's sake then, should this last Option be paired with its own explicit Condition along these lines?
A value of Manifestation: place of publication is a local place name (city, town, etc.)
A full address is present on the manifestation.
Further, there may be some further reorganization of the guidance to improve clarity.
Option 1: Add a new section of guidance, "Full addresses," to the existing sections, under which this Condition and Option would be organized, so that the resulting sections would now be:
- Local and larger place names
- Full addresses
- Fictitious place names
- Place names not found
Option 2: If guidance on full addresses is retained under Local and larger place names, then the conditions should be re-sequenced (with apologies for the "short-hand" rendering of the conditions):
- Local place present
- Local and larger place present
- Local place present and local place name used by other places
- Full address present
Regards,
John
John Myers, Catalog & Metadata Librarian
CC:DA Liaison to the MARC Advisory Committee
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308
518-388-6623
pronouns: he/him/his