<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi all,<br>
<br>
There is a week left to be sure, but I haven't received any real
feedback as yet. I thought I might start things going by addressing
my first general question, based on the following comment from the
CC:DA/MLA task force.<br>
<br>
<p><span style="font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">DCRM(M) and RDA:</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">It is our
understanding that as of January 1, 2015, BIBCO catalogers are
no longer allowed to use a nonRDA compliant standard for new
BIBCOauthenticated cataloging. The BSRs for individual
material types have been combined into a single <em>PCC RDA
BIBCO Standard Record (BSR) Metadata Application Profile</em></span><span
style="font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">4 </span><em><span
style="font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">, </span></em><span
style="font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">with guidelines that
provide for the combination of RDA and the other published DCRM
modules.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">We are glad to learn
that rare music provisions have already been included in the
BSR, and that the description conventions code dcrmm has been
established in advance of the </span><span
style="font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">publication of DCRM(M).
It is our understanding that BIBCOauthenticated records can
thus be coded as both RDA and DCRM(M) compliant, as is the case
with the other published DCRM modules, and that this option is
available for nonBIBCO records as well. While this was not the
case at the time of publication of the other modules, the
DCRM(M) text has the opportunity to indicate that catalogers
will have these options. Therefore we recommend that this
situation be discussed with the PCC Standing Committee on
Standards, and suggest further clarification in DCRM(M)
instructions on the possible combination of rules and
conventions. This impacts the Introduction (specifically II.1;
X.1.3; footnote 4), Appendix A, and Appendix B1.3.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Arial, sans-serif;color:#00b050;"><i>My
question.</i> We have the note agreed upon when the Graphics
volume was published: “The relationship between the DCRM manuals
and RDA is evolving. Current guidelines and other information
can be found on the RBMS website at <<a
href="http://rbms.info/committees/bibliographic_standards/dcrm/rda/dcrm-rda-html">http://rbms.info/committees/bibliographic_standards/dcrm/rda/dcrm-rda-html>.”<br>
</a></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Arial, sans-serif;color:#00b050;">Should
we keep this or consider a change as suggested above? Whichever
way, I will note that the link does not work anymore. It should
be:<a href="http://rbms.info/dcrm/rda/">http://rbms.info/dcrm/rda/</a></span></p>
thanks<br>
Nancy<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Nancy Lorimer
Head, Metadata Dept
Stanford University Libraries
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nlorimer@stanford.edu">nlorimer@stanford.edu</a>
650-725-8819</pre>
</body>
</html>