I was going to refrain from further comment on this, since my point was that we shouldn't spend so much time arguing about punctuation, capitalization, etc.   However, the comment from Mike Tribby brings the discussion to a more general issue:  " And if this tidbit of RDA is nothing but an arbitrary choice, what else in RDA is merely an arbitrary choice?"

Depending on how you define "arbitrary" much of RDA (and previous rules) is indeed arbitrary.   A certain level of arbitrariness is necessary for standardization.   We'll never all agree on issues like the best way to qualify a personal name, and rules say "shut up and do it this way, just because."    This isn't to say there aren't some basic sound principles behind the rules, as well as lots of tradition, but when there are several good choices, often you just have to be arbitrary.  The question we are debating here isn't really whether "cm" should have a period (I stand corrected) but whether having done it "wrong" for all of Anglo-American cataloging history, it is important now to get it right.  As Mike points out, software could take care of this anyway.

Capitalization and abbreviations are just examples, and they demonstrate how well catalogers can debate any cataloging point.   We have some brilliant minds focused on [I'm not sure what word to use here.  I don't want to insult anybody, but I think our energy could be better directed.]    

The point of my original post is that the PCC, as an organization of many different libraries, should allow lots of options in cataloging.   We can debate until the end of time over particular options, but in general, I think we'd benefit from a lot more than we have now.   Those who feel that more standardization makes cataloging easier always have the option of always following LC.

And now, I will shut up.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mike Tribby
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 10:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] More about two concerns about RDA

"Better to teach catalogers to adhere to the standard, which rightfully recognizes that cm is an internationally agreed upon metric symbol which does not include a period.  The standard spells out the content of the data to be included.  To record the value cm with a period is wrong.  RDA does not require ISBD punctuation, which is really the issue here.  In my mind it is better to forget to input a period after cm when there is a 490 present than to always input an incorrect period after the metric symbol."

While I enthusiastically agree with Adam about the relative merits of forgetting "to input a period after cm when there is a 490 present" as opposed to always inputting "an incorrect period after the metric symbol," I find myself wondering what other issues of bibliographic control the body that made that "internationally agreed upon" designation of metric symbols has been consulted on or deferred to on. The point of my bringing up the issue of USPS state codes (not abbreviations)on various lists has been to point out that there is an arbitrary distinction at work here since we--or RDA--seem to be saying that the same patrons who are befuddled by abbreviations like "p.", "col.", "ill.", etc. (and including "etc." for that matter) do understand that "cm" with or without a period means centimeters or even centimetres. It seems to me that this distinction in what we assume patrons know or understand is unlikely to be true. And if this tidbit of RDA is nothing but an arbitrary choice, what else in RDA is merely an arbitrary choice?

All that being said, autofill in cataloging software would pretty much take care of the specific issue/non-issue while leaving aside the question of arbitrariness in RDA.

Still waiting for my inbox to be flooded with leads on cataloging software with autofill...


Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses

mailto:[log in to unmask]