<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: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.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></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="MsoPlainText"><span style="color:#1F497D">Larry,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="color:#1F497D">I'm grateful for your nuanced consideration of issues in the proposal, and the perspective you've added about previous proposals to create a DCRM(General).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="color:#1F497D">I hope others will weigh in with thoughts on the pertinent questions you’ve raised.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="color:#1F497D">I’ll chime in on one. You asked:
</span>" … If so, is there a reason to finish the existing modules?"<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="color:#1F497D">In my mind, adoption of an alternate approach for DCRM-RDA revision need not alter the plans for the AACR2-compatible modules. I think most of us see a number of benefits to bringing those modules to completion,
especially since they are rather far along already.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="color:#1F497D">Francis<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Laurence S. Creider<br>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:19 PM<br>
To: DCRM Users' Group<br>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DCRM(B) revision process</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">So far most of the comments on the proposal to change the DCRM(B) revision process have been quite positive, and there are some advantages to the proposal. Still, there are a few considerations we need to address as a group before we
go galloping off.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">"1. Treat the RDA-compatible DCRM as a single unified text."<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Some years back, some of us proposed producing a DCRM(General) with variations for particular formats. The proposal was as inviting as is this one, but we did not know what the needs of the individual formats were at that point. We
needed to create the various modules and then go back and create a common manual, not unlike the process with the MARC formats and the later format integration and the development of the ISBDs.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">At this point, several of the modules have not yet been published. On the other hand, considerable progress has been made on all of them. The questions that the group needs to resolve are, first, do we have sufficient knowledge that
a generalized DCRM can be produced at this point? If so, is there a reason to finish the existing modules?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">"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></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">A clear problem here is that once one gets outside of books, the expertise is pretty thin on the ground. Specialists in the cataloging of some of the formats such as music and maps are going to end up working on several areas or chapters
and will be spread very thin. We need to develop a means to deal with this situation. For example, would it make sense to have a general group composed of individuals who have expertise primarily in books and RDA who create a text that tries to consider
other formats and then ask the various editorial teams committees to comment on the chapters as developed? Or would another arrangement work better?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">"3. Consider issuing the revised DCRM piecemeal, as portions are completed (asynchronously)."<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">If "issue" means that use of the portion in records would henceforth be permitted, this is a very bad idea. If "issue" means that the portion is made more widely available, that could be helpful as individuals find further things that
need to be addressed. The reason that the first idea is a bad one is that records would become impossibly hybrid as any BSR would be a moving target. Hybrid records with AACR-type DCRM description and RDA access points can be intelligible because there is
a clear line between description and access. Records created with a combination of partially AACR-compliant DCRM and partially RDA-compliant DCRM in continually changing proportions will be very confusing and will make shared cataloging difficult.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Let us not say "yes" or "no" without careful consideration of some of the practical implications of this proposal. I look forward to the discussion on Saturday a.m. at BSC. I only hope I can get to the room in McCormick in decent time
without getting lost. :-)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Larry<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">--<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Laurence S. Creider<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Head, Archives and Special Collections Dept.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">University Library<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">New Mexico State University<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Las Cruces, NM 88003<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Work: 575-646-4756<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Fax: 575-646-7477<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a href="mailto:lcreider@lib.nmsu.edu"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">lcreider@lib.nmsu.edu</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">On Mon, June 17, 2013 2:23 pm, Lapka, Francis wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> I am posting the following message to the BSC list and DCRM-L. I hope
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> many of you will take time to offer your thoughts. Please post all
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> comments to DCRM-L (so that a discussion might take place in a single location).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> As we near our meetings in Minneapolis and Chicago, I would like to
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> propose some significant changes to our approach on the DCRM(B)
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> revision for RDA. The proposal includes a new notion of the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> organization of an RDA-compatible version of DCRM and an alternate
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> approach for arriving at that end.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> 1. Treat the RDA-compatible DCRM as a single unified text.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> 2. Create the revised DCRM by way of editorial groups that each<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> focus on a particular area or chapter, drafting guidelines that apply
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> to all format types.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> 3. Consider issuing the revised DCRM piecemeal, as portions are<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> completed (asynchronously).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> 1. Treat the RDA-compatible DCRM as a single unified text.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> One of the defining characteristics of RDA is that it integrates
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> guidelines for varying format types (where AACR2 provided separate
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> chapters for each). To me, it makes so much sense for DCRM to take the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> same approach, as a single set of guidelines, with format-specific
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> instructions running in parallel throughout. Editorially, such a DCRM
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> would be a single text. That is, any given guideline might apply to
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> resources of multiple format types. Additional guidelines would be
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> added where there are format-specific reasons to do so. Such an
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> approach would parallel the organization of rules in RDA.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> For the benefit of the user (i.e. the cataloger), however, we could
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> still enable a functionality that resembles the current separation of modules.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> That is, we might offer a DCRM interface that allows a cataloger to
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> say "Give me just the DCRM rules concerning graphics [or any other
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> module]"; doing so would filter out all the guidelines that don't apply to graphics.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> This filtered set of rules could be applied to our online version of
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> DCRM or to printable versions (e.g. PDF files). A DCRM that offered
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> such functionality would be superior to RDA in this regard, since one
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> of the challenges of RDA is the need to wade through all the rules
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> that don't apply to the resource in hand. Since we are no longer
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> publishing print versions of DCRM (apparently), we have the freedom to
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> offer just such innovations, on rbms.info (and perhaps in the Toolkit too?).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> To my mind, the benefits of a more unified conception of DCRM are<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> numerous:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> * It is in the spirit of RDA, and would mimic the organization of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> the RDA text.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> * From an editorial perspective, it would be easier to maintain a<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> single text rather than six texts.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> * For integration with the RDA Toolkit, it would be easier to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> maintain one set of links, rather than six.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> * A significant portion of DCRM guidelines overlap already (i.e.,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> they have little-to-no variation). It doesn't make sense to maintain
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> these parallel rules in six different places. Doing so only increases
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> the chances of editorial errors and inconsistencies.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> * It would facilitate consistency of principles (and language)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> throughout the DCRM guidelines. Such consistency was one of the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> primary justifications for the creation of BSC's new DCRM Steering Group.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> * A unified DCRM would be more fit to nimbly adjust to changes in<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> a base standard. Our current base standard (RDA) is sure to evolve,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> and major upheavals may follow. In such an environment, it should be
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> easier to keep pace with corresponding changes in our DCRM guidelines
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> if those guidelines are as unified as possible.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> 2. Create the revised DCRM by way of editorial groups that each focus
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> on a particular area or chapter, drafting guidelines that apply to all
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> format types.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> It would be possible to work towards a consolidated version of DCRM
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> while still working first on a revision of DCRMB (alone). That is, we
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> could complete the revision of DCRM(B) for RDA and then create a
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> consolidated DCRM by appending other format-specific guidelines (where
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> necessary) afterwards. But this wouldn't be my preferred way forward.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> I think it would be most useful to tackle the DCRM for RDA revision
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> with an integrated approach from the get-go. Which isn't to say that
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> any one editorial group should bear the responsibility for drafting an
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> entire unified DCRM for RDA. That would be an impossible burden.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Currently, BSC editorial groups are divided by module. I propose that
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> the work of a revision of DCRM for RDA should still be divided among
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> multiple groups; but rather than dividing by module (format type), we
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> could form groups to work on particular areas (i.e. chapters, or parts of chapters, in RDA).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> So, for example, one group might tackle title & statement of
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> responsibility (for all formats), while other groups work on imprint,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> extent, or notes (etc.). Each group might have a member to represent
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> the specialized concerns of the various format types; and since most
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> of the DCRM modules are complete (or nearly so), we could come to the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> table with many of the format-specific issues already worked out
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> (albeit for AACR2 versions of DCRM).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> I think the challenge of revising DCRM for RDA becomes much less
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> foreboding when a given editorial group needs only to focus on a
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> specific section of the RDA text. This benefit is especially true
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> considering that many of us are still struggling to achieve a complete
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> grasp of RDA, given how recently we've made the leap.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Tackling RDA by chapters (rather than by formats) would also allow us
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> to comb through the text more methodically. By contrast, passing
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> through the RDA text in waves by format-type would mean that the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> editorial group for every module would have to consider every rule in
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> RDA to decide whether or not that rule was pertinent to their scope. That seems like wasted effort.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Adequate coordination would probably be the biggest challenge of this
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> alternate approach; but I think it would be manageable. To some
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> extent, BSC itself might serve as the coordinating body; or perhaps
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> our DCRM Steering Group would chiefly serve this role.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> 3. Consider issuing the revised DCRM piecemeal, as portions are
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> completed (asynchronously).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> I wonder if it's completely necessary to have the entirety of DCRM (or
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> DCRM(B), for that matter) revised before issuing it. That is, we could
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> complete (and issue) parts of the text while continuing work on other
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> parts. This issued-in-parts approach becomes a possibility now that we
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> are no longer bound to printed versions of the text. The BSR provides
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> a broad (and interim) framework for how to treat DCRM with RDA. If we
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> issued the revision piecemeal, we could point to the BSR for the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> portions of the DCRM text that had yet to receive full revision (and
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> the BSR itself would, in turn, be revised to reflect those guidelines
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> in DCRM for which the revision was complete). A piecemeal approach
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> would allow us to target areas of DCRM/RDA integration of most
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> pressing concern, while leaving for later the parts of DCRM and RDA that are already mostly compatible.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Frankly, I could see how this third point might be more trouble than
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> it's worth. It might introduce too much confusion. I suggest it
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> primarily to address the concern that revising all of DCRM at once
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> might take a long time. Inevitably, the time required to produce a
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> revised and unified DCRM would be longer than that required to revise
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> DCRM(B) alone-but what we gain by consolidation would merit the delay.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> --<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Of course, I realize that all the above is contrary to the plan
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> already endorsed by BSC and may represent an excessively radical
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> change. But I think that our revision process is still at a
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> sufficiently early stage that we could change gears without much
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> wasted effort. Everything that the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> DCRM(B) revision group has worked on to this point (an initial
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> rule-by-rule comparison of DCRM(B) with RDA) could be of use in this
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> alternate approach.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> I'd love to get your thoughts on all of this. If the consensus is that
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> we should stick to the approach already charted, that would be fine
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> with me too. But if there is general support for this alternate
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> approach (or particular aspects of it), I'd be keen to flesh it out or
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> amend it with your suggestions, leading up to our BSC meeting in
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Chicago. If we so desire, we could also discuss this approach further
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> during the portion of the BSC agenda allotted for the discussion of the DCRM(B) revision.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Francis<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> _________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Francis Lapka, Catalog Librarian<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Yale Center for British Art, Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> 1080 Chapel Street, PO Box 208280, New Haven, CT 06520<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> 203.432.9672 <a href="mailto:francis.lapka@yale.edu%3cmailto:francis.lapka@yale.edu">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">francis.lapka@yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka@yale.edu</span></a>><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Please note: the Study Room will be closed from June 4 through August
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> 30, 2013, due to the Center's refurbishment project. After September
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> 3, access will be limited and by appointment only. Requests for
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> materials from Prints and Drawings and Rare Books and Manuscripts
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> should be made at least two weeks in advance by e-mailing
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> <a href="mailto:ycba.prints@yale.edu%3cmailto:ycba.prints@yale.edu">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">ycba.prints@yale.edu<mailto:ycba.prints@yale.edu</span></a>>. It is expected that
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> normal services in the Study Room will resume in early January.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>