Topic 4: Transcription (responses)

[Elizabeth Robinson]

BSCers et al.,

Below is a message I received from Betty Herman as regardes topic 4 (transcription).

--Eliz.

----------
From: 	Elizabeth Robinson[SMTP:erobinson@huntington.org]
Sent: 	Tuesday, January 19, 1999 10:47 AM
To: 	'Elizabeth Herman'
Subject: 	RE: DCRB


I was interested to read that you are taking on "Transcription" in the
DCRB revision.  It is my greatest interest.  Because I rarely adhered to
the full stipulations in DCRB as regards transcription, I could never
code my records as dcrb.  What is the prevailing thinking now?  Or is
consensus yet to be achieved?  I would make a strong case for
<transcribing> what is in the chief source snd making use of 246 for the
various  alternate possibilities.  For one thing, it helps keep the
acquisition folk from repurchasing, at great expense to themselves, a
duplicate.  After all, one can always have a.e.s for various renderings
of the usual problem letters; certainly, even most scholars haven't
observed the printer's preference in the text (not infrequently
inconsistent), and of course there are binder's titles, conventional
titles, many cataloger's inventions, etc.  The one title that can be
seen is the title on the chief source, granted of course, that there is
one to transcribe.  Down off the soap box!  But I would like to hear
what the popular thinking is.  <snip>  Betty