On Monday, Christine and I will roll bleary-eyed out of our respective beds for a 6 a.m. conference call to discuss the various stages of text editing that will occur during the production of Resource Description and Access (RDA). In preparation for the meeting, I sent to the participants definitions of all the possible flavors of editing. Not every project goes through every stage, and often the stages are combined in some fashion—but I think seeing them laid out in a formal progression is useful.

Do a quick Google search and you’ll find plenty of people using different terms for these same definitions, and different definitions for these same terms. My definitions are no more right or wrong than the others (well, OK, they’re more right than most because, hey, I’ve been at this for 15 years), but this list is a good place to start if, say, you want to hire someone to shape that novel that you just wrote on your Nokia.

1. Developmental Editing
Working closely with the author at the draft manuscript stage to help direct and shape the content.

2. Substantive Editing
Improving the organization and expression of ideas. Identifying places where the author needs to rewrite or add content. (I think of this as a paragraph-level edit because it typically involves moving paragraphs around and reshaping the flow of the content.)

3. Line Editing
Improving the writing at the sentence level. For example, eliminating jargon, passive voice, wordiness. Querying any remaining problems that would fall under substantive editing.

4. Copy Editing
Correcting (or making consistent) capitalization, punctuation, spelling, grammar, usage. Querying any remaining problems that would fall under line editing. Creating an editorial style sheet.

5. Editorial Proofreading
Reading, with reference to the editorial style sheet where one exists, to make sure that the copy editing is complete. Typically this stage occurs only if the copy editing stage has been skipped for some reason, or if the copy editing was done by a subject matter expert rather than by a professional copy editor.

6. Traditional Proofreading
Comparing final copy word-for-word against an edited manuscript to make sure that they match. Marking anything that the copy editor has missed.

.

.

.

.

.

.

In the world of cataloging, nothing has ever generated quite the fervent discussion currently surrounding the content of the forthcoming Resource Description and Access (RDA)–well, nothing since AACR2 anyway. Such is the way of standards creation. Stinging jabs and left hooks aside, I’m finding the whole process very stimulating–from my seat on the sidelines–and I have a great deal of respect for those in the fray.

My role as editor on the publishing side is not my usual one. Instead of being involved with the content creation, I am focused on product creation. What features and functions should this online tool have to enable an effective and efficient workflow? What will the development of those features and functions cost, and how long will they take to develop? And, assuming we can’t have our entire wish list (can we ever?), how do we prioritize?

We took a giant step toward sorting these things out in an extremely productive one-day meeting here at ALA headquarters last Thursday. RDA content editor Tom Delsey flew in from Ottawa to meet with Nannette Naught (our product development consultant) and several other members of the project team to discuss exactly what is being done and what still needs to happen in order to make the features put forward in our original prototype possible. We were able to clarify for Nannette the purpose behind many of these functions, putting her in a good position to finish writing the draft functional requirements that will be a part of the RFP that we’ll send to software vendors.