I agree with Steven Arakawa. Whichever version of 126.96.36.199 is eventually
adopted, 188.8.131.52.1 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 184.108.40.206, 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
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
the web at
>>> "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 220.127.116.11.1 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