Proposal for labeling DCRM rules

[JAIN FLETCHER]

Hi, Bob,  
   If by "subnumbers" you mean the letters that they use for the 
subareas, then I like those subnumbers too.  I am not sure I've quite 
addressed that aspect of the correlation with our Task Group, but I 
have the impression that we are using the same subnumbering system.  I 
will look more closely at that.  However, if by "subnumbers" you mean 
the numbering *beyond* the letters, then I am not sure we can work out 
a very easy correspondence.  But I will think more about all of this. 
                            Thanks! Jain
PS:  A follow-up message to Eliz. Robinson's comments will come a 
little later today (I hope!)

On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 13:27:11 -0600 Robert Maxwell 
<robert_maxwell at byu.edu> wrote:

> I think these are good ideas; I do have a further suggestion. One of the
> really fine aspects of AACR2 is that the subnumbers of each chapter
> correspond pretty precisely to the same subnumbers in every other chapter.
> If we could work out a numbering system so that a rule in the general
> chapter carries the same number as its equivalent more specific rule in the
> material specific chapters, I think that would be more than handy. Are you
> doing that more or less with the music rules development?
> 
> Bob
> 
> At 08:22 AM 8/26/99 -0700, JAIN FLETCHER wrote:
> >Hello all,
> >     Now for something completely different.  I want to discuss further 
> >my ideas about the labeling of the DCRM rules.  This came up in some of 
> >the music task group's preliminary discussion.  We wondered if the 
> >rules we were making were going to exist as an entity unto itself (as, 
> >say, the MLA's Sheet Music Guidelines), or part of a larger whole (as 
> >AACR).  We see AACR as a good model, with its introduction, its overall 
> >rules (Ch. 1), its separately numbered chapters for each kind of 
> >format, its rules on abbreviations, numbering, its glossary and its 
> >index.   We see this model as having too many advantages not to 
> >advocate that we go with it for DCRM.  The best reason for this is that 
> >we could avoid a certain amount of duplication of effort.  As we know, 
> >most of the chapters of AACR2 are not as long as Ch. 1, because Ch. 1 
> >states the fundamental rules, then the rest of the chapters zero in on 
> >how those rules fit the format.  (Of course, DCRB doesn't have anything 
> >equivalent to this-only the rules for books.  Still, I believe it would 
> >be possible for these to act in the same way for DCRM as Ch. 1 does in 
> >AACR.)
> >     The Music Task Group has already decided that its rules are going 
> >to need an introduction and a glossary.  In the case of the glossary, 
> >it would be good simply to add our words to a whole (added along with 
> >the special terms for serials, maps, etc.)  This would avoid having to 
> >repeat certain terms from other existing glossaries in ours (not to 
> >mention, avoiding having 4 separate glossaries for DCRM).  As to our 
> >own introduction, we would need to see how everyone else's 
> >introductions are looking to decide whether the introduction we are 
> >writing can be incorporated into a single one for all the formats or 
> >whether the "chapter" we are writing should have its own.
> >     In advocating that the separate rules in DCRM be considered 
> >"chapters" a la AACR2, the next obvious question is how to distinguish 
> >those chapters.  We could number them, but if done consecutively (e.g., 
> >Ch.1 - books, Ch. 2 - serials, Ch. 3 - maps, Ch. 4 - music), the 
> >numbering would not correlate to AACR2 and this could be confusing to 
> >people using both sets of rules.  A way of avoiding this is to adopt 
> >AACR's chapter numbering (e.g., Ch. 2 - books, Ch. 3 - maps, Ch. 5 - 
> >music, Ch. 12 - serials).  This would have the advantage of correlating 
> >to AACR, but would be awfully silly-looking by itself.  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)).
> >     We have already found these distinguishing labels to be valuable.  
> >For one, the Music Task Group is referring to existing rules and rule 
> >interpretations, in order to be sure that we aren't proposing anything 
> >contradictory to them.  These include AACR2, Ch. 5, the LCRIs, the 
> >Music Cataloging Decisions (MCD), the Sheet Music Guidelines (SMG), not 
> >to mention DCRB itself for the invaluable foundation it has given us.  
> >We are also looking at the Serials draft to see how they have solved 
> >certain issues.  Having a way to distinguish among them concisely in 
> >our communications has been exceedingly useful.  This will only become 
> >a larger problem when these rules are finalized and "the world" starts 
> >using them.  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.
> >                          Thanks, Jain
> >
> >
> >
> >Jain Fletcher 
> >Head, Monographic Cataloging Section
> >Research Library - UCLA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Special Collections and Ancient Languages Cataloger
> 6428 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University