1D1/1D1.1

I think you can combine these two:

1D1. General rule. Record dates …

and re-number subsequent rules

 

AEB 3/2010-actually I am following the numbering exactly as it is in Books and Serials

 

1D1.1 – Not sure what rule this section explains. Was more intended to be added?

 

AEB 3/2010- not sure what the question is? Seems clear to me. It is about dates.

 

1D1.1: Change "Record dates the manuscript in hand was created, as part of this

element" to: [maybe] "Record dates of creation for the manuscript"

And somewhere in the rule, say "preceded by a comma" or something.

 

AEB 3/2010- punctuation does not get dealt with here, also not always the case with mss depending on MARC, EAD, etc.

 

1D1.2

F&p: Insert comma after “Rather”?

1^st example: Show only date portion in example; i.e., “, 1749 July 23”

 

1D1.2. The word “rather” beginning the second sentence confused me. I think it could be omitted.

 

AEB 3/2010- added comma after Rather, kept in the rule since this differs from the rules found in Books and Serials.

 

1D1.2 – First sentence a bit confusing. Perhaps eliminate “but do include the day and month, if present” since day and month inclusion is implied in the next sentence.

 

AEB 3/2010-I think it is important to keep this in the first sentance as it is following what is in Books and Serials.

 

1D1.2: First sentence: Change "Do not transcribe dates as they appear ..."

perhaps TO:  "Give the date(s) of creation as follows: do not transcribe dates

as they appear on the manuscript. Record the date expressed as year, month,

day, in the language of the [cataloging agency? or is that no good for

archives?] Normalize dates by expanding contracted years and converting ordinal

to cardinal numbers. Do not abbreviate months ..."

 

AEB 3/2010-Ditto

 

1D1.6

Examples: Precede 2^nd, 3^rd, and 5^th examples with “or”?

 

1D1.6: are this many options necessary?  Should explain that creator name can be in main entry field

 

AEB 3/2010- Added 'or' between examples. We are showing that it can be done in a variety of ways. Although maybe we can eliminate some of the examples... while still expressing that it can be done differently. Get rid of 3, 4, and 6?

 

1D2-1D4

All of these rules say “Transcribe … in a note, if considered important”; therefore, all notes need to be labeled “Optional note” (if these notes truly are optional; if they are mandatory, then the rule text needs modification).

 

AEB 3/2010- fixed. They do all need to be optional as in finding aids this kind of information may be unnecessary or just more than can be expressed although in come cases it is strongly urged to give a note as to where the date came from.

 

1D2.1

F&p: 2^nd example: Insert space between comma and date.

 

AEB 3/2010- fixed

1D2.2

Example: Separate ligatures (cf. DCRM(B) 0G1.1)

 

AEB 3/2010- fixed.

 

1D2.3

1^st example: Delete comment; inappropriate use of comment and not necessary.

F&p: 2^nd example: “Note” (i.e., “Optional note”) needs to be italicized.

 

AEB 3/2010-fixed

 

1D2.5.1

2^nd example, comment: “… but the date in the record description reflects Old Style …”

 

AEB 3/2010-fixed

 

1D2.5.2

“(new year beginning January 1)”

 

AEB 3/2010- removed

 

LADY DAY DATING SHOULD BE CHANGED TO "NEW YEARS THAT START OTHER THAN JANUARY 1" GIVE EXAMPLES SUCH AS LADY DAY DATING, ITALY, SPAIN (DEC 25) ETC.  AEB 1/19/10

 

AEB 3/2010- Section renamed: Calendars with start dates other than January 1  OR could it be "Calendars with different start dates." OR "Calendars with alternate New Year's"?

 

1D2.6

Do you really want all of these notes to be optional?

 

AEB 3/2010- Comment in word document. I think this may be a case where it should not be optional since these dates are NOT in the Julian or Gregorian Calendar originally and the person doing the description has intervened more than just guessing the date.

 

1D2.6 -- Assuming that the feast of St. Christopher was celebrated on July 25th in 1202 in England, the date appears to be correct.

 

AEB 3/2010- Think of removing this example as it is really an AMREMM document.

 

1D2.7

F&p: 2^nd paragraph: “according to 1D4-1D5”

 

AEB 3/2010- fixed

 

1D3

F&p: “according to 1D1.2 or 1D4-1D5”

 

AEB 3/2010- fixed

 

F&P: 1^st example: typo? Raleigh

 

AEB 3/2010- NOPE Ralegh spelled correctly.

 

F&p: 3^rd example, comment: Delete hyphen in “eyewitness”

 

AEB 3/2010-Fixed

 

1D4.1

1^st example: “circa”? Cf. 1D5 

1D4.1 -- Date in example uses "ca." while the patterns for supplying a conjectural date in 1D5 do not use the abbreviation.

 

AEB 3/2010-Fixed

 

1D4.3

This sounds more like a general rule; move to 1D4.1?

 

AEB 3/2010-Not sure if this really is a general rule but more specific about using the term undated.

 

1D4.3 -- Why do the rules not recommend the use of "undated," as used in DACS and APPM?

 

AEB 3/2010- Actually DACS does not recommend the use of undated but leaves it up to the institution to decide if they want to. Even APPM only uses it as a last resort. Besides it is the difference between cataloging somthing in MARC or doing item description within a finding aid. In MARC it would not be desirable to have undated but in a finding aid this might be ok.

 

1D5

F&p: Typo: “… patterns shown in the examples …”

 

AEB 3/2010- fixed

 

Reverse order of “first decade of century” and “decade uncertain”?

 

AEB 3/2010- fixed 

 

1D5. suggest renaming "terminal date" to be "implied terminal date" and/or extending it to so that "after 1875" is clarified as meaning "1876 or later", "before 1916 July 16" is clarified as meaning "not after 1916 July 15" because seeing the number that it's *not* is confusing. Similarly, having 1800s mean "19th century" and not "between 1800 and 1809" when "1810s" does mean "between 1810 and 1819" is troubling, especially because this is a difference between UK and American usage. I'd rather see [18--] replaced with "19th century" (though even then there will be arguments about whether that's 1800-1899 or 1801-1900. CDWA has useful rules on this that I'm hoping to use for DCRM(G) although we forgot to include them in the pattern chart of the current draft).

 

AEB 3/2010-Terminal dates I changed the wording back to what is in Books, Serials and Graphics and what will be in RDA, DACS seemed to be the only ones that used it in the positive instead of the negative.  (Although I do prefer DACS in this case, I like the fact that it is stated in the positive rather then the negative). Not comfortable with changing the rest to match DCRM(B) et. al. since these are following not only DACS but RDA as well. 

 

Cont.: Although I looked at CCO and it is also using after and before.

 

Above comment from Erin Blake, emailed for clarification, her response:

 

Shoot. I meant "CCO" not "CDWA"!  Sorry to have sent you on a wild goose chase. It's chapter 4 of CCO (paper copy shelved in my office). 

 

Re-reading my comments, I see they're painfully opaque, and badly worded. So, let me try again! Here's what I'm worried about:

a) the existing DCRM(MSS) wording replicates the problem with centuries and decades that already exists in the RDA Constituency Review draft  (i.e., no way to designate the first decade of century; not yet known if/how RDA will address that in the future)

b) the wording DACS uses in examples ("before 1867" and "after 1867 January 5") requires extra work: if a document makes internal reference to something that happened on January 5, 1867, then you would have to put "after 1867 January 4" in the date, because it could have been written on or after the 5th. And if the internal date is March 1, you'd have to check a perpetual calendar to know if that's "after February 28" or "after February 29."  In practice, people won't do that, so I think it's putting up an uncessary logical barrier. The trade-off of using "positive" language doesn't seem worth it, especially since DACS isn't prescriptive about it (e.g. allowing both "approximately" and "circa") while DCRM(B) is.

 

AEB 3/2010: After looking at CCO I am not sure about making any changes to what we are doing except to perhaps do 19th century instead of 1800s. Folger uses century and I think it makes more sense then 1800s or 18-- and does not have the problem with the first decade that 1800s does.

 

1D6.2

“… do not record as date. Instead, follow rules of conjectural dates in 1D4-1D5 and 1D5.”

 

AEB 3/2010- fixed.

 

1D7.2

“… the last date of creation, or both, are not present on the manuscript, or are uncertain, follow the rules for conjectural dates in 1D4-1D5 and 1D5 and connect …”

2^nd example: “circa”? Cf. 1D5

 

AEB 3/2010- fixed.

 

1D7.3

“… with the word “bulk” and connect a the range of dates …”

 

AEB 3/2010- fixed.

 

 

1D7.4

F&p: comma after “etc.”

Example: “circa”? Cf. 1D5; “Optional note” 

AEB 3/2010- fixed.