I realize I left a misleading impression (so to speak :-) in my original message about how RDA would record the extent of the book with 48 leaves, numbered on one side only but printed on both sides.
In RDA the extent of this book would be recorded in terms of leaves. In AACR2 it would be recorded in terms of pages. AACR2 would record the extent "48 [i.e. 96] p." RDA would record the extent "48 leaves". The RDA formulation does not give a misleading impression of the extent of the resource and in my opinion is easier to understand.
Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of john g marr
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 12:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 6JSC/LC/21 (was: More RDA proposals for review/comment)
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Robert Maxwell wrote:
> I believe the RDA changed definition is a real improvement over AACR2s
> definition ... we were subjected to horrendous and fairly ridiculous
> extent statements such as "48 [i.e. 96] p." ... RDA ... solved this by
> defining what we record in terms of how the book was paginated [I should have said foliated], not by
> how it was printed. Since we are recording page numbers in the extent
> element for a printed text, it is entirely logical that the base
> definition of page be based on how the numbers are presented.
A person seeking a book on a subject is interested in the extent of its
intellectual content (represented e.g. by how many printed "pages" there
are, the "96" above), not in how the leaf-sides are numbered (the "48"
above). The AACR2 example above essentially explains that the numbering in
the book gives a misleading impression of the content.
I wouldn't be too concerned about rare and atypical situations such as
the one above, but if such situations have aroused extreme consternation on
the part of patrons (which is, by definition, not going to happen in "rare
and atypical situations"), they might be worth discussing *for that reason
John G. Marr
Univ. of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
**There are only 2 kinds of thinking: "out of the box" and "outside
Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.