DCRM and visual materials

[Elizabeth Robinson]

I agree with Patrick about the over-extension bit. Maybe we should list the other codes that apply to different formats in an appendix, and unless there is some pressing need to put a DCRM spin on those rules, let them suffice. The serials are a situation where that is the case (i.e. a DCRM spin is needed), but maybe some (most?) of the other formats don't require that. Or at least, not yet. What do you think?

--Eliz.

----------
From: 	Patrick Russell[SMTP:prussell at library.berkeley.edu]
Sent: 	Tuesday, April 20, 1999 11:49 AM
To: 	dcrb-l at lib.byu.edu; 'DCRB-L'
Subject: 	Re: DCRM and visual materials

Hi all:

I think Elizabeth raises some good points. However, I am also concerned
that RBMS Standards may be over-extending itself.  Having used GIHC
extensively for Bancroft's pictorial materials, and at least initiated into
APPM, I would prefer to see us go the route of "referring to" in let us say
a bibliography.  If there are specific concerns (GIHC is for "original
items and historical collections", maybe we want to suggest that this be
spelled out differently, that certain kinds/situations of material be
addressed, etc.)

In my experience the real problem with GIHC is not a lack of "special
collections" orientation, but rather its being almost entirely geared to
the type of things and method of acquisition in place at LC Pic&PhotDiv.  I
would also say, from knowing Helen Zinkham and other staff members, that
they would be most willing to expand the provisions of said manual (one
area being more adequate treatment of collection-level records), which is
now in the process of revision.  Seems to me that it would be fruitful for
us to pursue "expanding" GIHC rather than offering our own solutions in
some kind of separate DCRB/V.

I'm not so sure about APPM -- We at Bancroft would not in any case use APPM
for a collection of predominantly printed and/or visual material -- We
would apply LC's monographic collection-level practice or GIHC. RBMS
Standards might consider, however, what are implications of the
collection-level concept (with linked finding aids)i to the cataloging of
early printed material, such as ephemera, broadsides, pamphlets, etc.  

In other words -- as far as DCRB goes, I would like to see us focus on
printed materials -- not that other things aren't important, but rather
that we don't over-extend what we can practically accomplish.

Patrick