I agree with you about "48 leaves, that is, 96 pages." That's the best way to convey the fact that there are 48 numbers but twice as many pages. It seems to me that catalogs should distinguish between a book of 48 leaves printed on one side and one of 48 leaves printed on both sides. We should recognize, as Bob Maxwell and others said, that something is a leaf whether it has printing on it or not. But I do think that difference is significant for catalogs.
Ed Jones seemed to be saying that it's not significant, since comparing the extent of the "content" of the two works would involve more than how many printed pages there are. Other factors like the font and size of the margins would have to be taken into account, too. But I think it's reasonable for catalogs to give users a *rough* idea of how big a work is. A book with 48 pages is significantly smaller than one with 96.
UAB Lister Hill Library
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Elizabeth O'Keefe
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 10:57 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] 6JSC/LC/21 (was: More RDA proposals for review/comment)
I agree with Steven Arakawa. Whichever version of 184.108.40.206 is eventually adopted, 220.127.116.11.1 should be revised to make it plain that for resources lacking numbering, "pages" should be used as the unit of measurment if both sides contain content, "leaves" if only one side contains content.
By the way, the first example in Section 18.104.22.168, Misleading Numbering, may contain a typo:
"If the numbering on the last page, leaf, or column of a sequence does not represent the total number of pages, leaves, or columns in that sequence, let it stand uncorrected unless it gives a completely false impression of the extent of the resource (e.g., when only alternate pages are numbered or when the number on the last page, leaf, or column of the sequence is misprinted).
When correcting misleading numbering, record the numbering as it appears on the last page or leaf followed by that is and the correct number.
48, that is, 96 pages
329, that is, 392 pages"
If only alternate pages are numbered, the volume is foliated. I think the word leaves was inadvertently omitted from the example, which should
48 leaves, that is, 96 pages
I think this would also be the way to record the corrected extent if the proposed revision is adopted.
Director of Collection Information Systems The Morgan Library & Museum
225 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016-3405
TEL: 212 590-0380
NET: [log in to unmask]
Visit CORSAIR, the Library’s comprehensive collections catalog, now on the web at http://corsair.themorgan.org
>>> "Arakawa, Steven" <[log in to unmask]> 7/30/2012 3:48:58 PM
The proposal notes that if leaf and page are defined by pagination, there are going to be situations when you will need to refer to, e.g.,
12 unnumbered <pages? leaves?>. The RDA examples under 22.214.171.124.1 freely use "unnumbered pages" and "unnumbered leaves," which implies a distinction not based on pagination but (I'm guessing) printing. I don't think this has yet been addressed in the thread.
Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation Catalog & Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
(203)432-8286 [log in to unmask]
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 4:04 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 6JSC/LC/21 (was: More RDA proposals for review/comment)
For what it's worth--and in contradiction my earlier post--OED defines "folio" [A.I.1.] as, "A leaf of paper, parchment, etc. (either loose as one of a series, or in a bound volume) which is numbered only on the front", not "A leaf of paper ... that has text only on the front."
(http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/72529 subs. req.)
Not that catalogers have to stick to the dictionary, even such a fine dictionary as the OED. But I found it interesting.
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries