<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1293364708;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1609024206 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1783182522;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-78890730 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">I am posting the following message to the BSC list and DCRM-L. I hope many of you will take time to offer your thoughts. Please post all comments to DCRM-L (so that a discussion might take place in a single location).
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As we near our meetings in Minneapolis and Chicago, I would like to propose some significant changes to our approach on the DCRM(B) revision for RDA. The proposal includes a new notion of the organization of an RDA-compatible version of
DCRM and an alternate approach for arriving at that end. <span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><![if !supportLists]><span style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><![endif]>Treat the RDA-compatible DCRM as a single unified text.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><![if !supportLists]><span style="mso-list:Ignore">2.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><![endif]>Create the revised DCRM by way of editorial groups that each focus on a particular area or chapter, drafting guidelines that apply to all format types.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><![if !supportLists]><span style="mso-list:Ignore">3.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><![endif]>Consider issuing the revised DCRM piecemeal, as portions are completed (asynchronously).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>1. Treat the RDA-compatible DCRM as a single unified text.
<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><o:p> </o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">One of the defining characteristics of RDA is that it integrates guidelines for varying format types (where AACR2 provided separate chapters for each). To me, it makes so much sense for DCRM to take the same approach, as a single set of
guidelines, with format-specific instructions running in parallel throughout. Editorially, such a DCRM would be a single text. That is, any given guideline might apply to resources of multiple format types. Additional guidelines would be added where there
are format-specific reasons to do so. Such an approach would parallel the organization of rules in RDA.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For the benefit of the user (i.e. the cataloger), however, we could still enable a functionality that resembles the current separation of modules. That is, we might offer a DCRM interface that allows a cataloger to say “Give me just the
DCRM rules concerning graphics [or any other module]”; doing so would filter out all the guidelines that don’t apply to graphics. This filtered set of rules could be applied to our online version of DCRM or to printable versions (e.g. PDF files). A DCRM that
offered such functionality would be superior to RDA in this regard, since one of the challenges of RDA is the need to wade through all the rules that don’t apply to the resource in hand. Since we are no longer publishing print versions of DCRM (apparently),
we have the freedom to offer just such innovations, on rbms.info (and perhaps in the Toolkit too?).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To my mind, the benefits of a more unified conception of DCRM are numerous:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]>It is in the spirit of RDA, and would mimic the organization of the RDA text.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]>From an editorial perspective, it would be easier to maintain a single text rather than six texts.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]>For integration with the RDA Toolkit, it would be easier to maintain one set of links, rather than six.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]>A <i>significant</i> portion of DCRM guidelines overlap already (i.e., they have little-to-no variation). It doesn’t make sense to maintain these parallel rules in six different places. Doing so only increases the chances of editorial
errors and inconsistencies.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]>It would facilitate consistency of principles (and language) throughout the DCRM guidelines. Such consistency was one of the primary justifications for the creation of BSC’s new DCRM Steering Group.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]>A unified DCRM would be more fit to nimbly adjust to changes in a base standard. Our current base standard (RDA) is sure to evolve, and major upheavals may follow. In such an environment, it should be easier to keep pace with
corresponding changes in our DCRM guidelines if those guidelines are as unified as possible.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>2. Create the revised DCRM by way of editorial groups that each focus on a particular area or chapter, drafting guidelines that apply to all format types.<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It would be possible to work towards a consolidated version of DCRM while still working
<i>first</i> on a revision of DCRMB (alone). That is, we could complete the revision of DCRM(B) for RDA and then create a consolidated DCRM by appending other format-specific guidelines (where necessary) afterwards. But this wouldn’t be my preferred way forward.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12.0pt">I think it would be most useful to tackle the DCRM for RDA revision with an integrated approach from the get-go. Which
<i>isn’t to say</i> that any one editorial group should bear the responsibility for drafting an entire unified DCRM for RDA. That would be an impossible burden. Currently, BSC editorial groups are divided by module. I propose that the work of a revision of
DCRM for RDA should still be divided among multiple groups; but rather than dividing by module (format type), we could form groups to work on particular
<i>areas</i> (i.e. chapters, or parts of chapters, in RDA). So, for example, one group might tackle title & statement of responsibility (for
<i>all formats)</i>, while other groups work on imprint, extent, or notes (etc.). Each group might have a member to represent the specialized concerns of the various format types; and since most of the DCRM modules are complete (or nearly so), we could come
to the table with many of the format-specific issues already worked out (albeit for AACR2 versions of DCRM).
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12.0pt">I think the challenge of revising DCRM for RDA becomes much less foreboding when a given editorial group needs only to focus on a specific section of the RDA text. This benefit is especially true considering that
many of us are still struggling to achieve a complete grasp of RDA, given how recently we’ve made the leap.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12.0pt">Tackling RDA by chapters (rather than by formats) would also allow us to comb through the text more methodically. By contrast, passing through the RDA text in waves by format-type would mean that the editorial
group for every module would have to consider <i>every rule in RDA</i> to decide whether or not that rule was pertinent to their scope. That seems like wasted effort.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12.0pt">Adequate coordination would probably be the biggest challenge of this alternate approach; but I think it would be manageable. To some extent, BSC itself might serve as the coordinating body; or perhaps our DCRM
Steering Group would chiefly serve this role. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12.0pt"><b>3. Consider issuing the revised DCRM piecemeal, as portions are completed (asynchronously).<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I wonder if it’s completely necessary to have the <i>entirety</i> of DCRM (or DCRM(B), for that matter) revised before issuing it. That is, we could complete (and issue) parts of the text while continuing work on other parts. This issued-in-parts
approach becomes a possibility now that we are no longer bound to printed versions of the text. The BSR provides a broad (and interim) framework for how to treat DCRM with RDA. If we issued the revision piecemeal, we could point to the BSR for the portions
of the DCRM text that had yet to receive full revision (and the BSR itself would, in turn, be revised to reflect those guidelines in DCRM for which the revision was complete). A piecemeal approach would allow us to target areas of DCRM/RDA integration of most
pressing concern, while leaving for later the parts of DCRM and RDA that are already mostly compatible.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Frankly, I could see how this third point might be more trouble than it’s worth. It might introduce too much confusion. I suggest it primarily to address the concern that revising all of DCRM at once might take a long time. Inevitably,
the time required to produce a revised <i>and unified</i> DCRM would be longer than that required to revise DCRM(B) alone—but what we gain by consolidation would merit the delay.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">--<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Of course, I realize that all the above is contrary to the plan already endorsed by BSC and may represent an excessively radical change. But I think that our revision process is still at a sufficiently early stage that we could change gears
without much wasted effort. Everything that the DCRM(B) revision group has worked on to this point (an initial rule-by-rule comparison of DCRM(B) with RDA) could be of use in this alternate approach.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’d love to get your thoughts on all of this. If the consensus is that we should stick to the approach already charted, that would be fine with me too. But if there is general support for this alternate approach (or
<i>particular aspects </i>of it), I’d be keen to flesh it out or amend it with your suggestions, leading up to our BSC meeting in Chicago. If we so desire, we could also discuss this approach further during the portion of the BSC agenda allotted for the discussion
of the DCRM(B) revision.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Francis<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">_________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Francis Lapka, Catalog Librarian<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yale Center for British Art, Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1080 Chapel Street, PO Box 208280, New Haven, CT 06520<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">203.432.9672 <a href="mailto:francis.lapka@yale.edu">francis.lapka@yale.edu</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#1F497D">Please note: the
<b>Study Room will be closed</b> from June 4 through August 30, 2013, due to the Center’s refurbishment project. After September 3, access will be limited and by appointment only. Requests for materials from Prints and Drawings and Rare Books and Manuscripts
should be made at least two weeks in advance by e-mailing </span><a href="mailto:ycba.prints@yale.edu"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">ycba.prints@yale.edu</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#1F497D">. It is expected that normal services in the Study
Room will resume in early January.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>