<html>
<body>
I have to say I've always questioned, on some level, how genuinely useful
the core standards are, in practice.<br><br>
At MIT, we discussed at length, and ended up dismissing, the use of
"regular" core for our working collections, on the grounds that
sometimes -- perhaps even more often than not -- it can actually be more
difficult _not_ to include things than to include them. My
colleagues and I felt that the practical differences between full and
core records were so minimal that the time needed to learn and
internalize such a standard would largely be misspent. It dredges
up the old line (attributed, by everyone in the world, to everyone else
in the world), "I didn't have time to make it short." I
can't speak to the usefulness of DCRB core specifically, but Jain's and
Bob's comments on its history have been very enlightening.
<br><br>
In any case, I agree that requiring the 505 seems bizarre.
<br><br>
But I agree with Beth and any others who insist the thesis note is
important, even in a core record; I would argue that it belongs, if
possible, in even the most minimal record. Although there are fixed
field bytes we use to code a work as a thesis, I still think giving users
a reliable way to<br>
1) identify theses as such via the description, even when they've been
reproduced or republished, and <br>
2) use keyword or dedicated-noteword ways to find such things, is very
valuable. <br><br>
Because it resides in a dedicated tag, the thesis note can easily be
pulled into its own noteword (or other) index. I think it's very
telling that, far from being lumped in with 1.7B1, the dissertation note
is among the most, if not the most, heavily "structured" note
in chapter 1 of AACR2. I don't know why the editors of AACR2
attached such value to it, but at MIT it is highly useful for identifying
an important class of materials. <br><br>
Perhaps I should put it this way: in _not_ identifying a work as a
thesis, we withhold information that may be crucial to the person reading
the surrogate. Most things that are theses say so, in a prominent
place. If we don't include thesis information in a tag dedicated to
that purpose, then presumably we put it someplace where it doesn't
belong, or we simply leave it off the record. How do we justify
that, even in a core record? <br><br>
Stephen<br>
At 04:24 PM 3/1/2006 -0700, Robert Maxwell wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml"
xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"> <br>
<font face="arial" size=2>Since we're discussing how people use core, the
only reason I sometimes code a DCRB record core is if I do not want to
supply a call number, i.e., if the record is for a pamphlet or broadside
and we're just going to put it in an accession number arrangement here.
Everything else about the record is full, but the availability of DCRB
Core allows me to contribute the record as a PCC Bibco record without
adding a call number. I don't do this very often (if the call number is
very simple to construct I'll often add one anyway even though we're not
going to use it at BYU and then I code the record as PCC full). So when I
use core I'm not particularly thinking of how I might pare down the
record; it just allows me to contribute a record without including one of
the required fields for book core (the call number).</font><br>
<br>
<font face="arial" size=2>Bob</font><br>
<br><br>
<font size=2>Robert L. Maxwell<br>
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian<br>
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian<br>
6728 Harold B. Lee Library<br>
Brigham Young University<br>
Provo, UT 84602<br>
(801)422-5568 <br>
</font> <br><br>
<dl><hr>
<dd><font face="tahoma" size=2>From:</b> dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu
[<a href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu" eudora="autourl">mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</a>]
On Behalf Of </b>Deborah J. Leslie<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Wednesday, March 01, 2006 3:10 PM<br>
<dd>To:</b> DCRM Revision Group List<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> RE: [DCRM-L] DCRB Core<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font color="#0000FF">Thanks, Elaine. It was in the back of my mind
that most of the DCRB and DCRM(B) notes are optional, as you say, so the
distinction between full and core may be hard if not impossible to pin
down. </font><br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>________________________<br><br>
<dd>Deborah J. Leslie<br>
<dd>Folger Library<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:djleslie@folger.edu">djleslie@folger.edu</a><br>
<dd> <br>
<dd><font face="tahoma">-----Original Message-----<br>
<dd>From:</b> dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu
[<a href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu" eudora="autourl">mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</a>]
On Behalf Of </b>Shiner, Elaine<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Wednesday, 01 March, 2006 16:56<br>
<dd>To:</b> DCRM Revision Group List<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> RE: [DCRM-L] DCRB Core<br><br>
</font>
<dd><font face="arial" color="#000080">I havent read Windys study yet,
but Id like to comment about the fact that a lot of records coded
coreactually meet standards for full level. Ive experimented with
using the DCRB core standard for some of my books, with the addition of a
signature statement. When I do this, I often start out coding for
core, with the best of intentions, but end up adding a note or two I
hadnt planned on (because its easy, or because Im lacking in the
requisite self-discipline), and then I find myself wondering whether Ive
reached full level. It seems easy to know when youve fulfilled the
requirements for core, but somehow harder to recognize when youve passed
beyond core to full level, probably because the requirements for
full-level vary, depending on the book in hand. I actually find
this to be a problem with using the DCRB core standard. Maybe I just need
to review the books core standards, and keep more clearly in mind all the
ways they differ from full level. <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial" color="#000080"> <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial" color="#000080">Further, eliminating optional
notes in the DCRB (or DCRM(B)) standard should not technically affect
whether cataloging is full-level or not, should it? Yet eliminating
optional notes is one of the main recommendations of the DCRB core
standard. I wonder how many rare book catalogers may code a record
4as a way of letting colleagues know that options have not been taken;
that is, the record may be technically full level, but falls far
short of the treatment they would like to give the book. Thats not
what the DCRB standard is for, yet I myself feel tempted to use it that
way.<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial" color="#000080"> <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial" color="#000080"> <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial" color="#000080"> <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="Book Antiqua, Bookman">Elaine Shiner, Head
Cataloguer<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="Book Antiqua, Bookman">William Andrews Clark Memorial
Library<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="Book Antiqua, Bookman"> <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="Book Antiqua, Bookman">Email:
<a href="mailto:shiner@humnet.ucla.edu">shiner@humnet.ucla.edu</a><br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="Book Antiqua, Bookman">Phone: 323-731-8529<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="Book Antiqua, Bookman">Fax: 323-731-8617<br>
</font></blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
</dl>| Stephen Skuce | Rare Books Cataloging
Librarian<x-tab> </x-tab><br>
| MIT Libraries | Building 14E-210B |
617.253.0654 | skuce@mit.edu</body>
</html>