Proposal for labeling DCRM rules

[JAIN FLETCHER]

Well, actually, I don't find it that this throws a monkey wrench in the 
works.  In a sense, the idea I proposed takes away any concern for rule 
or chapter "order" by defining each set of rules by the appropriate 
ISBD designations. I only brought up current AACR2 chapter numbering in 
order to show how trying to ally ourselves with it would be 
problematic.  I would definitely support changing AACR chapter 
designations to ISBD designations in the future.  Therefore, I am 
taking your message (and my scan of the Rule 0.24 Disc. Paper, esp. 
your "experiments in [rule] reorganization"--where I don't see any 
changes in the numbering system we're talking about--and p. 95, "C.2. 
AACR2R Chapters Compared to ISBD") as support to my proposal. 
                                   So, thank you!   --Jain

On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:06:30 -0400 John Attig <jca at psulias.psu.edu> 
wrote:
> 
> Just to throw a monkey wrench in the works . . .
> 
> Don't assume that the way AACR2 is organized now is the way it will be
> organized in the future.  And definitely assume that the way the rules are
> numbered is likely to change.
> 
> CC:DA has just voted a proposal which recommends to the Joint Steering
> Committee that the rules in Part I of AACR be reorganized.  Instead of a
> general chapter followed by separate chapters for particular types of
> materials, the reorganized rules would have a chapter for each of the 8
> ISBD areas of description.  Within each chapter there would be a sequence
> of general rules (mostly, the present Chapter 1); interspersed with these
> general rules would be specific rules for particular categories of
> material.  The report includes prototypes of two chapters: Chapter 1 by
> Martha Yee and Chapter 2 by me.  I won't go into the reasons for the
> change.  However, CC:DA is not the only source of this recommendation; it
> is also recommended by Tom Delsey in his model of Part I of AACR2.  The
> Joint Steering Committee is meeting in October in Australia and is expected
> to consider this question -- among many others; if I hear any news, I'll
> pass it on.
> 
> The report is available online at 
> 
> http://www.libraries.psu.edu/iasweb/personal/jca/ccda/tf-024a.html
> 
> [It's the last item in the list of "Documents" and is available in three
> different formats.]
> 
> I'm not arguing for any particular organization for DCRM.  However, you
> should be aware that seeking to parallel the organization of AACR2 may well
> be a moving target.
> 
> 
> At 01:27 PM 8/26/1999 , you 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
> 
> 
> 
> 		John Attig
> 		Penn State University Libraries
> 		814/865-1755; 814/863-7293 (fax)
> 		jca at psulias.psu.edu
> 
> 

*********************************************************************
"The best way to kill bibliographical scholarship is to persuade
 readers that citations that fail to expose bibliographical details
 still tell them all that they need to know."
--Donald Krummel, _Descriptive Bibliography and Printed Music_
*********************************************************************
Jain Fletcher 
Head, Monographic Cataloging Section
Research Library - UCLA