<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:SimSun}
@font-face
{font-family:SimSun}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{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.BalloonTextChar
{font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"}
span.EmailStyle20
{font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext}
span.EmailStyle21
{font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D}
span.EmailStyle22
{font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D}
span.EmailStyle23
{font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt}
@page WordSection1
{margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in}
-->
</style><style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
</head>
<body ocsi="0" fpstyle="1" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;">I still maintain that, since we're for the most part in mixed catalogs (that is, neither exclusively dcrmb, or dacs, or rda, to say nothing of a mixture of different conventions
and codes over time), and given the subjectivity of whether or not the bracketing convention is followed (is it the sort of resource that where a date would normally be found or not?), the presence or absence or brackets will be completely meaningless to end
users (even catalogers), so what is the purpose of the convention (specifically, with regard to the date of production element)? To ask the Lubetzky question, why is this rule necessary?<br>
<br>
Bob<br>
<div><br>
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2">
<div class="PlainText">Robert L. Maxwell<br>
Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.<br>
6728 Harold B. Lee Library<br>
Brigham Young University<br>
Provo, UT 84602<br>
(801)422-5568 <br>
<br>
"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.<br>
</div>
</font></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF975515"><font color="#000000" face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b> dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu [dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu] on behalf of James, Kate [kjam@loc.gov]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, December 31, 2013 7:36 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> DCRM Users' Group<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [DCRM-L] Date of Production and Date of Manufacture elements - should a priority order be provided to prefer data in the resource itself first?<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Bob,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Regarding your mention of bracketing, that is an LC/PCC practice for 2.2.4. RDA itself says to indicate that the information was taken from outside the resource by a note or some other means (e.g., square brackets).
However, if you think that square brackets alone are not clear to users, there’s nothing in the LC/PCC practice that would prohibit also providing an explanatory note.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I agree it can be confusing to the generalist cataloger which kind of archival resources would be expected to have a date and which wouldn’t. However, it would be impossible for RDA or an LC-PCC PS to list every
type of resource and which ones typically contain dates and which ones don’t. As I said before, many institutions that are not archives contain material that is not typically expected to contain a date of production so re-characterizing the instruction would
help with that confusion.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">RDA is a generalist cataloging standard. Having worked with AACR2, RDA, Dublin Core, APPM, DCRM(B), and DACS, my personal opinion is that for a small institution with mostly typical library materials (e.g.,
books, periodicals, DVD, etc.) and just a few unusual things, RDA works well. For a large institution with a large amount of disparate resources like LC, it makes sense to catalog the materials according to the standard best suited for them—so LC uses RDA,
DACS, DCRM(B), AMIM, and others. For a specialized institution, it may make sense to use a specialist manual like DACS for description and RDA for authorized access points.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Kate</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Kate James</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Policy and Standards Division</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Library of Congress</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none; border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt; padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Robert Maxwell<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 30, 2013 7:17 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> DCRM Users' Group<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [DCRM-L] Date of Production and Date of Manufacture elements - should a priority order be provided to prefer data in the resource itself first?</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I think it is quite bizarre that 2.7.6.2 quite clearly says “take dates of production from any source”, which would mean that in MARC implementation no bracketing would be needed, but then under 2.7.6.7 we are
told to bracket (i.e. follow the MARC implementation of 2.2.4) under 2.7.6.7 for archival resources if the date of production is found outside the resource itself. At the very least this instruction should be labeled an exception.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I’d say it calls for bracketing dates in nearly all collections—for example, “1785–1960, bulk 1916–1958”—I assume the instruction taken literally means, if the information isn’t bracketed, that the cataloger
actually found all four dates somewhere written on an item or items in the collection. Is that really what is intended (or wanted)?
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">On the shopping list, which as you say wouldn’t be expected to have a date (I agree), wouldn’t the exception under 2.2.4 kick in (“Do not indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the resource
itself if the resource is of a type that does not normally carry identifying information”)? So which archival things are expected to have a date (and thus the date needs to be bracketed if it isn’t on the resource) and which ones are not expected to have a
date (and thus the date doesn’t need to be bracketed)? If sometimes we bracket date of production, sometimes we don’t (based on whether the exception under 2.7.6.2 applies, and then further based on whether the exception under 2.2.4 applies)—isn’t the meaning
of the bracketing going to be pretty opaque even to the most sophisticated of our users?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Since it’s come up as an issue where RDA needs clarification or revision, I’m for clarifying that we don’t need to bracket date of production, period (which would among other things mean revising 2.7.6.2).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Bob</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; color:#1F497D">Robert L. Maxwell<br>
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger<br>
6728 Harold B. Lee Library<br>
Brigham Young University<br>
Provo, UT 84602<br>
(801)422-5568 <br>
<br>
"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.</span><span style="color:#1F497D"></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none; border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt; padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu" target="_blank">dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</a> [<a href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu" target="_blank">mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>James, Kate<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 30, 2013 10:45 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu" target="_blank">dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [DCRM-L] Date of Production and Date of Manufacture elements - should a priority order be provided to prefer data in the resource itself first?</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Francis—</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">A few thoughts for you to consider:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in"><span style="color:#1F497D"><span style="">1)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="color:#1F497D">All the sub-elements of publication statement are core. However, for production statement, only one sub-element, date of production, is core. Perhaps that is why there is a difference
in sources of information for date of production vs. place of production and producer’s name? Also, the specific instruction at 2.7.6.7 about indicating a source outside the resource itself overrides the general idea that if it’s “from any source” you don’t
need to indicate where it’s from. See point 2) below.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in"><span style="color:#1F497D"><span style="">2)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="color:#1F497D">Manuscript catalogers should pay close attention to 2.7.6.7 (Archival Resources and Collections). The instructions here are different than those in 2.7.6.3 (Recording Date of Production).
2.7.6.7 applies to both collections and a single archival resource, which could be a manuscript cataloged individually. My guess is that 2.7.6.3 is aimed very generally at resources like paintings and miscellaneous resources, and 2.7.6.7 is meant for unpublished
resources which may be expected to contain a date. For example, letters and wills are typical types of manuscript resources that often contain dates. Other types of manuscript resources like a shopping list would not be expected to contain a date, and then
2.7.6.3 with the exception at 2.2.4 kicks in.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in"><span style="color:#1F497D"><span style="">3)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="color:#1F497D">The labelling of 2.7.6.7 and 2.7.6.3 is confusing, and perhaps RBMS can provide some help with that. I used to work in a special collections library that had everything from 20<sup>th</sup>
century publications to stuffed birds (taxidermy, not toys). When we accepted an archival collection from a donor, that collection often contained many manuscript materials as well as realia. The collection was cataloged with one bibliographic record linked
to the finding aid, which had the real details about all the unusual stuff. I’m sure many archives and special collections regularly encounter similar situations. It may also be misleading to label 2.7.6.7 in such a way that it makes it seem like the holding
institution determines how the date of production is recorded. There are many libraries that collect manuscripts and they don’t have the label “archive” anywhere in their organizational structure.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Please note these are all my personal thoughts as a former manuscripts cataloger and rare book cataloger. They do not reflect any positions of the Policy and Standards Division at LC, and I have not asked anyone
else in PSD for their opinions on this issue. I don’t get to talk manuscript cataloging with people much anymore so I kind of jump at the chance.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Kate James</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Policy and Standards Division</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Library of Congress</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none; border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt; padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu" target="_blank">dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</a> [<a href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu" target="_blank">mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Lapka, Francis<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 30, 2013 11:50 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu" target="_blank">dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [DCRM-L] Date of Production and Date of Manufacture elements – should a priority order be provided to prefer data in the resource itself first?</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#1F497D">Attention manuscript catalogers</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#1F497D">Here is a second issue submitted by Kathy Glennan for CC:DA discussion at Midwinter:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><a href="http://alcts.ala.org/ccdablog/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/JSCrepGlennan201305.pdf" target="_blank">http://alcts.ala.org/ccdablog/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/JSCrepGlennan201305.pdf</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#1F497D">The summary is sufficiently short to copy here:</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Background:
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Deborah Fritz has identified a problem with identifying the source of information for Date of Production (RDA 2.7.6.2). As currently phrased, the date of production can come from any
source, with no priority being given to a source in the resource. When the source of information is “any source,” catalogers do not need to indicate in any way that the data is supplied. However, RDA provides conflicting information about this recording
this element. In relation to supplied dates, RDA 1.9.2 states in part: “Indicate that the date was taken from a source outside the resource itself (see 2.2.4).” Indeed, Date of Production appears on the list of transcribed elements in RDA 2.2.4 which require
identification when the element is supplied from outside the resource. Deborah has also noted that subsequent instructions in RDA 2.7 also reference 2.2.4.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In addition, the other elements associated with the Production Statement do provide a priority order. The same situation occurs with Date of Manufacture (RDA 2.10.6.2).
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Current text: </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">2.7.6 Date of Production </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">2.7.6.2 Sources of Information </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in">Take dates of production from any source.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">2.8.6 Date of Publication </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">2.8.6.2 Sources of Information </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in">Take dates of publication from the following sources (in order of preference):
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.5in">a) the same source as the title proper (see 2.3.2.2)
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.5in">b) another source within the resource itself (see 2.2.2)
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.5in">c) one of the other sources of information specified at 2.2.4.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in">For multipart monographs and serials, take the beginning and/or ending date of publication from the first and/or last released issue or part, or from another source.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">For integrating resources, take the beginning and/or ending date of publication from the first and/or last iteration, or from another source.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Questions for discussion:
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1. Should CC:DA develop a change proposal to address this situation? If so:
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. Should the proposal suggest changes for both Date of Production and Date of Manufacture?
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">3. Should the new language follow that for Date of Publication (RDA 2.8.6.2), or should it be simplified to just offer:
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">a. a source within the resource itself
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">b. any source
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">4. If based on Date of Publication, should any of the final paragraphs be omitted? Does that decision apply to both Date of Production and Date of Manufacture?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#1F497D">For Date of Manufacture, the current RDA guidelines (take “from any source”) are indeed problematic. I think it would be logical to revise the guidelines to follow those
for Date of Publication. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#1F497D">For Date of Production, however, the RDA guidelines are in harmony with the current draft of DCRM(Mss), which also instructs to take the information “from any source.” In
light of the principles of manuscript cataloging, are RDA’s guidelines for Place of Production and Producer’s name more problematic? For these, the preferred sources of information echo those of published (i.e. self-describing) resources.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#1F497D">The concluding
<i>exception</i> at RDA 2.2.4 is important: <b><i>“</i></b>Do not indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the resource itself if the resource is of a type that does not normally carry identifying information (e.g., a photograph, a naturally
occurring object, a collection).” Even though elements of the production statement are named as transcribed elements (in 2.2.4), most resources for which we’d record production information are also those that do not normally carry identifying information.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#1F497D">Your thoughts wanted (especially the Mss group).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#1F497D">Thanks,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#1F497D">Francis<b><i></i></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(RBMS Liaison to CC:DA)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">_________________________________</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Francis Lapka, Catalog Librarian</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yale Center for British Art, Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1080 Chapel Street, PO Box 208280, New Haven, CT 06520</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">203.432.9672 <a href="mailto:francis.lapka@yale.edu" target="_blank">
francis.lapka@yale.edu</a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.0pt; color:#1F497D">Please note: The Study Room is closed due to the Center’s refurbishment project, and access to the collections is 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" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:8.0pt; color:#1F497D">ycba.prints@yale.edu</span></a><span style="font-size:8.0pt; color:#1F497D">. It is expected that normal services in the Study Room will resume in early
January 2014.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>