[DCRM-L] DCRM(R) 6.22.37.1 If a resource consists entirely of non-textual material ...

[Erin Blake]

I wasn't an original DCRMR editor, so I can't speak to why the rule exists,
but I'm guessing that "entirely non-textual" is meant to be taken extremely
literally.

If there's a title page (engraved or letterpress), a printed cover
containing text, or any other speck of transcribable printed content in the
resource, you could use DCRMR if you wanted to.


______________________
Erin Blake, Ph.D.  |  Senior Cataloger  |  Folger Shakespeare Library  |
201 E. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC, 20003  |  eblake at folger.edu  |
www.folger.edu
<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/-t5RCjRgpBtArRXC7R7_2?domain=urldefense.com>
  |  Pronouns: she/her/hers




On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 12:04 PM Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu>
wrote:

> A question for DCRMR editors:
>
>
>
> DCRMR 6.22.37.1 says:
>
>
>
> If a resource consists entirely of non-textual material (e.g.,
> photographs, portraits, maps), do not record the presence of illustrations.
> Instead, describe the resource using the instructions for the appropriate
> content type (e.g., still image, cartographic image, etc.)
>
>
> https://bsc.rbms.info/DCRMR/phys-desc/Illustrative-content/#62237-resources-consisting-entirely-or-chiefly-of-illustrations
>
>
>
> If I’ve understood this correctly, DCRMR tells us that a work composed
> entirely of engraved images should be cataloged as a graphic resource. Is
> that correct? Does it matter whether the resource has a letterpress title
> page or cover title (for example: https://worldcat.org/title/1290320394)?
>
>
>
> For comparison, DCRM(G)’s Appendix H has these introductory remarks:
>
>
>
> This appendix provides guidance for cataloging formally published
> portfolios, books of plates, etc. bearing formal title pages when graphic
> material characteristics are the primary focus of the description. The
> primary differences from book cataloging are the presence of the general
> material designation “graphic,” and a statement of extent counts and
> describes images instead of focusing on pagination. An institution might,
> for example, decide to catalog volumes that consist chiefly or entirely
> illustrations as books when the images are reproductive prints, and as
> graphic material when the images themselves are works of art (see
> introductory section X on precataloging decisions).
>
>
>
> To date, my repository has largely followed the distinction described in
> that final sentence. For records I see in OCLC as well, volumes of
> reproductive prints are much more frequently described as books (with
> DCRMB) than as graphics. In DCRMR, they’d all be graphics? I’d be okay with
> such a change, though it is significant.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Francis
>
>
>
>
>
> Francis Lapka
>
> Senior Catalog Librarian
>
> Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts
>
> Yale Center for British Art
>
> 203-432-9672  ·  britishart.yale.edu
> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbritishart.yale.edu%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cfrancis.lapka%40yale.edu%7Cfb678f45888e4aae1f5008da31b1564f%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637876934967882020%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9eMfY4U2535Butdi00ad6lmf%2FF3nBZt1XmuIHeJPa5w%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20221128/32eafd7e/attachment.htm>