<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 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Georgia;
panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 4 5 2 3 3;}
/* 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:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
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;}
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;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
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;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Georgia",serif;
color:windowtext;}
.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:268515293;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1641405874 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:958025508;
mso-list-template-ids:-942608262;}
@list l2
{mso-list-id:1142845037;
mso-list-template-ids:367187502;}
@list l2:level1
{mso-level-start-at:2;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
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="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia",serif">BTW, the DDR exemption mentioned below is independent of the DDR exemption for material coded dcrmb, dcrb, etc. Items thus coded will remain exempt, regardless of date.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia",serif"><o:p> </o:p></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 <dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu> <b>On Behalf Of
</b>Lapka, Francis<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, February 7, 2020 9:08 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [DCRM-L] OCLC -- Rare Materials Demarcation Date<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-family:"Georgia",serif">I’d like to resurface the questions posed by OCLC concerning the rare materials demarcation date for OCLC's automated Duplicate Detection and Resolution (DDR) process. Material before the demarcation
date will be exempt from the automated DDR process. I think there are two distinct questions:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-family:"Georgia",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><span style="font-family:"Georgia",serif">Do we want to discard the somewhat arbitrary 1801 demarcation date, advocating instead for a date that comes closer to serving as a demarcation of the division between
hand- and machine-press processes? If so, do we sufficiently agree that pre-1831 (or pre-1830) would be the best option?<o:p></o:p></span></li></ol>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Georgia",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="2" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><span style="font-family:"Georgia",serif">If the demarcation has to remain in the vicinity of its current division, pre-1801, (this is OCLC’s decision to make), would we be okay with the gentle suggestion
to move the demarcation by one year to pre-1800? Even if there’s a principle that a century begins on the “…1”, my sense is that in common cataloging practice we more frequently supply a range of dates (in fixed fields) that begin with a “…0” (or 18uu). According
to OCLC’s current rules, 18uu dates are exempt from the DDR process, which seems counter to the spirit of the pre-1801 division. What do others think?<o:p></o:p></span></li></ol>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-family:"Georgia",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-family:"Georgia",serif">Our decision here will have a fair amount of impact. I’d like to see a good number of responses, so that we may give OCLC some sense of a consensus.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-family:"Georgia",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-family:"Georgia",serif">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-family:"Georgia",serif">Francis<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-family:"Georgia",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-family:"Georgia",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: DCRM-L <<a href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu">dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</a>> On Behalf Of Shoemaker, Elizabeth Anne<br>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 9:23 AM<br>
To: DCRM Users' Group <<a href="mailto:dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu">dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] [External] Re: OCLC -- Rare Materials Demarcation Date<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Emory also uses 1830 as a cutoff for various projects and workflows.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Beth Shoemaker<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Rare Book Cataloger<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Stuart A. Rose Manuscript, Archives, & Rare Book Library Emory University<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">-----Original Message-----<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">From: DCRM-L <<a href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</span></a>> On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 3:03 AM<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">To: DCRM Users' Group <<a href="mailto:dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu</span></a>><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Subject: [External] Re: [DCRM-L] OCLC -- Rare Materials Demarcation Date<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">For Jay's first question, "up to and including 1800" is the traditional standard, on the principle exemplified by those of us who celebrated the beginning of the 21st century on January 1, 2001. (-;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">For the other, many institutions use a later cut-off date in an attempt to more closely approximate a division between hand-and machine-press processes. The Folger uses 1830: I am responsible for cataloging pre-1831 printed material
using DCRM(B), while a colleague is responsible for post-1830 printed material using RDA.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. | Folger Shakespeare Library | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 | 202.675-0369 |
<a href="mailto:djleslie@folger.edu"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">djleslie@folger.edu</span></a> |
<a href="https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.folger.edu&data=02%7C01%7Cfrancis.lapka%40yale.edu%7C8de560ecd9604f8432b008d7abd73596%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637166813126438213&sdata=dzYRBxzkrUqGp%2BGjReF4fIjYxiY4rGDTNsKsD3n8yBA%3D&reserved=0">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.folger.edu&data=02%7C01%7Cfrancis.lapka%40yale.edu%7Cb68d7be2efb24cdc64fb08d7a6591646%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637160773866772618&sdata=Gf%2BAbm1bQeaZAu3VELWbdhqRoAH0KbZq2qh6LgAJ41Q%3D&reserved=0</span></a>
________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">From: DCRM-L [dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu] on behalf of Lapka, Francis [francis.lapka@yale.edu]<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 09:53<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">To: 'dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu'<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Subject: [DCRM-L] OCLC -- Rare Materials Demarcation Date<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">I am forwarding the following message on behalf of Jay Weitz, OCLC, who is keen to hear input from our community.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><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">These questions are related to our work on the merge guidelines for rare materials, but have come up here at OCLC within a different context. Running this past you, and the rest of the Bibliographic Standards Committee if you'd like,
seemed a prudent idea.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">As many of you know, since the beginning of OCLC's automated Duplicate Detection and Resolution (DDR) process, bibliographic records "pre-1801" have been exempted from DDR processing. This was deemed to be in line with how many, if
not most, descriptive conventions tended to define rare materials, early printed monographs, and the like (AACR2 2.12 "pre-nineteenth-century publications;" DCRB 0A "published before 1801;" DCRM(B) I.2 "Unlike its predecessors, which were intended to apply
exclusively to pre-1801 imprints ...;" as examples).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Over the life of both versions of DDR, that "pre-1801" limit has been interpreted in various ways. We are taking this opportunity to see what the RBMS community would prefer.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">If the 1800 demarcation date continues to make sense to the community, what would be preferable? If the year 1800 itself is included in the exemption, many ambiguous dates in MARC that imply post-1800 dates ("18-", "181-", "between
1800 and 1815", and so on) also get exempted from DDR. With that in mind, is it better to designate the limit as "up to and including 1799" or "up to and including 1800"?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Or would there be a better, more specific, or more justifiable cut-off date than 1800, possibly corresponding to some historic development in printing?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Remember that the more DDR exemptions there are, the more duplicate records WorldCat will contain and the more merges will need to be done manually.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Thanks so much for considering these questions.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">jay<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">This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the original message (including attachments).<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>