Posting to Autocat: concerning whether cm should get a period or not
On 4/28/2014 6:41 PM, Tennant,Roy wrote:
Fair enough. Caught again with using “MARC” as shorthand for the entire environment within which it sits. My bad. But we are still left with the problem, wherever we wish to lay the blame. I also acknowledge that the threat of dragging this mess forward with us still exists.
I don’t see this particular case of whether to place a period after “cm(.)” as a problem. This is something that a user wouldn’t even notice and makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to search, retrieval or coherence. Yes, periods or lack of them in different parts of the record drive me nuts, but I am a crazy cataloger! It makes no difference to anybody else, so why not file this and similar concerns under “cataloger’s judgment” since it makes absolutely zero difference. The RDA gurus have placed far more important parts of the records under the heading “cataloger’s judgment”. If we did that, the “problem” then just disappears for everyone and we can turn our attention to much more important matters.
If the problem is with the display and there is a worry that if someone added cm. (with a period), and the computer was set to display a period at the end of the 300, there may be a risk–heaven forbid!–of something displaying cm.. !!!!
Of course, solving the display can be solved with a line of code. Programmers do that sort of thing all the time. I have even done it myself. Personally, I don’t care if it would display cm.. if we could get back the rule of three and that 245$b is mandatory, and a few other points that have far more consequences than this. It would be a fair trade-off, I think.