Proposal for labeling DCRM rules

[JAIN FLETCHER]

Hi, Bob,
	In a recent e-mail, I said that I would try to answer 
Elizabeth's response to my rule labeling proposal, but haven't had much 
of a chance since then.  I have at least been able to keep up with the 
subsequent related messages.  I was especially interested in your idea 
(included below) that we might consider changing DCRM's order to 
reflect the likely new order of AACR3.  After some more consideration 
of that matter, I think that trying to answer that consideration is a 
good way for me to begin my response to Elizabeth's message.
	In light of various recent questions (on this list and in the 
music Working Group) on how the rule 0.24 proposals might affect our 
work on DCRM, I have now spent more time reading the CC:DA Task Force's 
proposal paper on that topic.  (BTW, I highly recommend a close reading 
of it to everyone working on DCRM.)  As you know, it is a good and 
thoughtful attempt at finding ways to incorporate issues of multiple 
characteristics and formats into the rules. Given the authors' 
wide-ranging experience, they quite ably bring to the fore numerous 
issues relating to non-book format material. They give 4 options on how 
to incorporate multiple characteristics into the rules (with option 1 
being named as currently recommended by CC:DA).  They give 3 (A-C) 
options (with many "sub-options") for dealing with format variations 
(with option C being named as currently recommended by CC:DA).
	Although I have strong opinions about the second set of options 
(CC:DA's recommended option might well impact our day-to-day 
cataloging, no matter how we write the rules in DCRM), it is the first 
set of options which addresses the possible re-arrangement of the rules 
as a part of the solution to multiple characteristics.  Option 1, being 
the one recommended by CC:DA, starts with:  "Reorganize the current 
chapters 1-13 such that they are in order by the areas of the 
description, with a chapter on Area 1, a chapter on Area 2, etc. ..."  
Option 1 is highlighted in Appendix A, which provides 2 "experiments in 
reorganization", with Area 1 given by Martha Yee and Area 2 by John 
Attig. 
	Without going into my ideas about CC:DA's option 1 as it 
relates to AACR3, I will tell you why I don't think it is necessary for 
DCRM.  To do so, I would like to bring to your attention the very 
beginning of CC:DA's report, "Overview and Recommendations concerning 
revision of rule 0.24".   It is there that "the multiple 
characteristics problem" is summarized.  The list and the examples 
given for each aspect represent an excellent delineation of the various 
levels (conditions) of bibliographic entities.  As I looked at this 
list and its examples, I noticed that some of these conditions fully 
match concerns related to "early" publications (a, b, c and e) and the 
rest only partially match those materials.  This reminded me once again 
that there is at least one major difference in the underlying principle 
between the two kinds of rules.  "Modern" rules need to reflect and 
respond to the current and foreseeable future of publishing.  On the 
other hand, the history of our materials is fully known (or is at least 
researchable), so "early" rules need only reflect the known history of 
a (usually) completed period of publication history and thus, need not 
be expandable (for the future, anyway).   Furthermore, the list of 
material that "early" rules need to cover is much smaller.  Those rules 
would not need to address issues related to any electronic media nor to 
microfilm--not for a few centuries, anyway.      ;-)
	The point in the last two sentences isn't the most important, 
but it does serve to underline some differences that working with 
historical material makes to our cataloging.  The historical aspect is, 
however, fundamental to our work.  In fact, our working group has 
discussed from its beginning just how "instructive" our rules might 
need to be about history.  How much should be assumed of the cataloger 
facing rare printed music--that they have some or any background in 
music and/or music history (especially history of music printing), 
music cataloging, rare book cataloging, or descriptive bibliography?  
How much about the history of music printing should we write into our 
rules or our introduction?; should our examples be the only means of 
informing?, etc., etc.  I have noticed that the Rare Serials draft has 
dealt with this historical aspect in various ways.  One is through 
their examples, but the most notable (to me) are the charts in rule 1A. 
These tables are most impressive to me and is an idea we may want to 
adopt in a few areas to bring out the two wholly different printing 
methods used in early music printing.   
	The issue of whether or not to treat all formats together 
within each Area of AACR3 becomes much more important for our rules 
because of this historical angle.  While the authors have many 
excellent reasons for making the proposal for AACR3, there is still a 
concern that various unique aspects of the formats could be obscured.  
(John Attig also expresses this concern [much better than I can!] in 
his "Afterthoughts" to his "Reorganization of Area 2" in the 0.24 
proposal.)  This concern becomes fundamental in rules for rare 
materials.  Dealing with all the formats within one area would take 
away our ability to address adequately the unique printing issues and 
history of our own materials.
	There are, of course, a few other good and practical reasons to 
have separate rules for each type of material, but I believe this one 
is the most compelling of all.
	Now, you will notice that I have not addressed whether these 
rules are chapters within a larger book or separate sets (manuals) of 
rules falling under the main title, Descriptive Cataloging of Rare 
Materials (followed by $p Serials or $p Printed Music, etc.).   
Elizabeth was quick to notice that my proposal for labeling needed to 
be considered in the context of DCRM's physical manifestation.  But I 
actually believe that the labeling I've suggested gives us room to 
consider presenting them in whatever way we want: as separate chapters, 
separate manuals, or even separate sections within each Area (even 
though I have just stated my own disenchantment with that idea).  It 
can also cover the rules whether people have them in printed or 
electronic form (Cataloger's DeskTop comes to mind). 
	Elizabeth also corrected my mistaken coding(!) in the 040: I 
did, indeed, mean that "dcrm(pm)" could go into $e, not $b as I had 
said.  She also said that we do not specify (code) the AACR2 chapters 
in 040 $e now, so why should we do that for DCRM?  I can see that point 
and don't have a strong reason to argue for it.  But I do think it 
might be a way to ascertain that the cataloger had adhered to specific 
guidelines for specific material and not just used all of DCRM in 
cataloging a non-book format.  This is probably quite picky and I have 
no strong opinion that it should happen necessarily.  I think it may be 
worth tossing around a little however, before totally discarding as an 
idea.
 	Before stopping, I will say again that I think that it would be 
a good idea to talk more about how we think DCRM will (or may) take
shape.  It would help some of us devising other rules to make more 
informed choices for some of our own issues.
                             Thanks, Jain



On Mon, 30 Aug 1999 12:26:53 -0600 Robert Maxwell 
<robert_maxwell at byu.edu> wrote:

> John said: 
> 
> >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.
> 
> My suggestion was not to try to make DCRM parallel to AACR2, but to make
> the chapters for specific types of materials number parallel to the
> numbering in the general chapter (currently DCRB). DCRB is, of course, also
> a moving target, but at least it is a moving target our group can control.
> 
> On the other hand, we might want to model the whole DCRM on the proposed
> structure of AACR2 and organize it by area with specific types of materials
> treated in each area, rather than having a general chapter and then
> subsequent chapters for specific materials. What does everyone think of
> this suggestion?
> 
> Bob
> 
> >
> >
> >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

> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Special Collections and Ancient Languages Cataloger
> 6428 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602

*********************************************************************

Jain Fletcher 
Head, Monographic Cataloging Section
Research Library - UCLA