<div dir="ltr">
<div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I
am forwarding comments on the RBMS PS for RDA 2.2.2.2, Preferred
Sources of Information, from the Cataloging Advisory Committee of
ARLIS/NA. We appreciate the chance to provide feedback on your very
important work.<br></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The
RBMS PS for 2.2.2.2 introduces a distinction between single-sheet
resources and resources consisting of multiple pages, leaves, etc., and
it offers
a different method for choosing the preferred source of information for
multi-sheet resources. Both changes are an improvement on RDA.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">A book or other complex object can harbor descriptive
information in many different places, and it often becomes necessary to choose
from among multiple sources. A single sheet has a very limited set of possible
information sources: essentially two surfaces, recto and verso, plus, in some
cases, a container, envelope, etc. <span> </span>It
seems appropriate to make the whole sheet (plus original container, etc.) the
source, and leave it to the cataloger’s judgment to evaluate the information, if
any, on the resource. It is also a good idea to have a format-neutral approach to
single sheets, with the same approach being applied to text, music, graphics,
etc.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The PS for resources consisting of more than one sheet
offers a more nuanced approach towards determining what constitutes sources of
information in multi-sheet resources lacking a title page. Instead of just
relying on a single criterion, information source type (e.g. colophon, caption,
masthead), the RBMS PS starts out by preferring formally presented information,
no matter where it appears in the resource, over informally presented information.
A formal presentation of information seems more likely to represent the
creator’s or the producer’s intent, and therefore should be preferred, no
matter where it occurs in the resource. If there is no formal presentation, the
PS goes on to list various information source types, which vary somewhat from
those listed by RDA, since they reflect production practices more
characteristic of materials found in special collections. Although this could
sometimes result in a different title transcription, we think it is worth it,
because the title chosen applying the RBMS PS guidelines better represents the
resource described.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">One question about the wording used to distinguish between
single-sheet and multi-sheet resources. The RBMS PS basically divides the
universe of manifestations on sheets/leaves/cards into:<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span> <wbr> </span>Single
sheet resources<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span> <wbr> </span>Manifestations
consisting of more than one page, leaf, sheet, or card<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">But every single sheet has two pages, even if one is blank.
Should “page” be dropped from the description of the second category? <span></span></p>
<br></div>Liz O'Keefe<div class="gmail-yj6qo"></div><div class="gmail-adL"><br></div>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 4:13 PM, Mascaro, Michelle <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mmascaro@ucsd.edu" target="_blank">mmascaro@ucsd.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" lang="EN-US">
<div class="m_-6958182213258122203WordSection1">
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">I am putting out a second call for responses to this question (see original email below) proposed to the list before Midwinter. Please respond by the end of next week.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">I have heard from a couple people that their responses are not making it to the list. The problem tends to be that the email they are sending from does not match the email they signed up for the
listserv. In these cases, DCRM-L drops the message and no notice is sent to the sender. If you think your response may have been lost, please feel free to contact me off list.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">To start discussion…I am posting the text of one these lost emails that was recently sent to me.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">"The order of sources proposed by RBMS PS 2.2.2.2 seems relevant and effective to me (with the caveat that I don't catalog notated music and have done very few serials).
And I'm comfortable with the fact that the proposed order could result in a different title than that identified by using the RDA order of sources. Titles are important in identifying manifestations so it's not insignificant to possibly have two different
titles depending on the guideline you use but I think it's warranted here. The source order you suggest is closest to how rare materials identify themselves which allows for more accurate representation of the material and facilitates user tasks. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_-6958182213258122203xmsonormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_-6958182213258122203xmsonormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">It seems odd that we would instruct to ignore the early printed resources exception, though. I know a previous proposal by the RSC Rare Materials Working
Group to change RDA 2.2.2.2 was not accepted and was withdrawn. Is the plan to issue a new proposal based on this RBMS PS?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_-6958182213258122203xmsonormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_-6958182213258122203xmsonormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Thanks,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_-6958182213258122203xmsonormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Kate"<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Kate S. Moriarty, MSW, MLS | Rare Book Catalog Librarian | Associate Professor | Pius XII Memorial Library | Saint Louis University | 3650 Lindell Blvd. | St. Louis, MO 63108
| 314-977-3024 | <a href="mailto:kate.moriarty@slu.edu" target="_blank">kate.moriarty@slu.edu</a> | <a href="http://lib.slu.edu/special-collections" id="m_-6958182213258122203LPNoLP" target="_blank">http://lib.slu.edu/special-<wbr>collections</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> DCRM-L [mailto:<a href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu" target="_blank">dcrm-l-bounces@lib.<wbr>byu.edu</a>] <b>On Behalf Of
</b>Mascaro, Michelle<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:45 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> DCRM Users' Group <<a href="mailto:dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu" target="_blank">dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [DCRM-L] RBMS Q3: Sources of information<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Happy New Year. The next issue I would like to present for community discussion is sources of information. The current draft of the RBMS PS proposes a different order of preference for choosing a source of information for resources that
lack a title page than what is in RDA proper (including the RDA early print resources exception). Due to the complexity of the changes, I am attaching a copy of the 2.2 RBMS PS side by side with RDA text for additional context. (I omitted the RDA instructions
for subrules where there are no PS.) The section about manifestations with no title page, title sheet, or title card is under 2.2.2. I am particularly interested in community feedback on both the proposed order and general thoughts on whether it is problematic
for the RBMS PS to deviate from RDA here. (Technically, the same resource could be described with two different title whether one is following RDA proper or the RBMS PS.)
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#002060">Michelle Mascaro<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif">Head, Special Collections Metadata<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif">University of California, San Diego
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif">(</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif">858) 534-6759
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif"><a href="mailto:mmascaro@ucsd.edu" target="_blank">mmascaro@ucsd.edu</a></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>