Proposal for labeling DCRM rules

[Elizabeth Robinson]

Jain said (regarding numbering of chapters and rules in DCRM):

To avoid all of 
this, we believe that the best way to distinguish the chapters would be 
to use the ISBD designation for the format as the chapter headings 
(i.e., monographs, cartographic materials, printed music, serials).  
The rules themselves would be preceded by the acronyms for these 
formats, would proceed to the number for the "area" designation, a 
capital letter for subsections of the areas and finally, consecutive 
numbering for the rules within each area and subsection (in other 
words, exactly like AACR, with the exception of the way in which those 
are preceded: with chapter numberings). We have already begun this for 
the music chapter (PM1A1, PM4C3, PM5B15).  Whenever referring to the 
rules as a whole, the chapters would also be distinguished with the 
acronym (e.g., DCRM(M), DCRM(CM), DCRM(PM), DCRM(S)).

If DCRM is what we wind up with in the end, I think this sort of sectioning would be the best. But the question for me is, do we want one large DCRM code *or* do we want DCRB, DCRS, DCRM, etc. as a standalone codes *or* do we want the non-book formats to remain appendices (as now)? Or something else? 

I suspect the size and bulk of the nonbook codes will have alot to do with this. E.g. serials will probably be large but some other format may not, especially if we only refer to some other existing code with little additional instruction. Say, for example, we decide we don't want to say much additionally for rare visual materials than what GIHC (or AACR2 ch. 8) say(s) already. It seems something like that would best be handled by an appendix to DCRB or indeed be a DCRM chapter but not some standalone code. I'm not favoring anything here yet, just thinking out loud. 

Jain also said:

     But to mention one quite practical issue, when we advocate 
specifying the rules used in the 040 $b of our bib record, don't we 
want to make it quite clear the format we've followed (e.g., $b 
dcrm(pm))?  I see a great potential value in this.   In addition, it 
looks as though this idea is going to become more of a possibility for 
AACR3, as well, if I understood correctly what John Attig was saying at 
our meeting this summer.  In fact, I have already noticed this for 
electronic resources: we've been asked on listservs to review ISBD(ER), 
but haven't I also noticed some people referring to AACR3(ER), as well?
     Please think about this proposal carefully.  It may seem early to 
come to this kind of decision, but I don't think so, given that we've 
found it valuable to use the designation already.

You mean 040 $e, yes? I'll keep track of your comments on this for the DCRB Appendix E discussion. Hmm. If we do leap the full DCRM way, why not just 040 $e dcrm? Although the coding is a fixed field for AACR2, we don't specify AACR2 books ch. or AACR2 serials ch. (etc.), but simply do a DCF=a or Desc=a (RLIN and OCLC respectively). Now if we don't go the DCRM route but do have standalone cataloging codes for each format, I then think the more specific coding is definitely warranted -- dcrb, dcrs, dcrm, etc.

--Elizabeth A. Robinson
  Principal Rare Book Cataloger
  Huntington Library
  erobinson at huntington.org