DCRM(S) pt. 5-7

[Patrick Russell]

Hi all:

Order of notes: MARC order, imposed or not, needs to be born in mind, in
order for notes to make sense where local system imposes MARC rather than
rules order.  But within a given field same point holds.
I guess I basically agree with Bob's point.

Patrick

At 12:30 PM 1/19/01 -0700, Robert L. Maxwell wrote:
>http://www.library.yale.edu/conser/documents/dcrs.html
>
>5C1. Do you want to note that the AACR2 abbreviations *should* be used in 
>this area, since in so many other areas we are NOT abbreviating? E.g., 
>facsim., geneal. tables, ports.
>
>5D3. I suggest that rather than give a cutoff date, you speak in terms of 
>the materials and process of making the serial. For example, you might word 
>the rule to say "For publications issued on laid paper ..."
>
>6. An example would be useful-- "This is a series: ..." "This is not a 
>series. Rather, it is other title information: ..."
>
>7A paragraph 4. I suggest "Notes *should* be made ..." rather than "Notes 
>*may* be made ..."
>
>7B3. Quotations. "...unless that source is the title page", taken from 
>DCRB, might not make as much sense in the context of a serial. Which title 
>page? How about " ... unless that source is the chief source" instead?
>
>7C. We are prescribing order of notes here, as DCRB and AACR2 do. I would 
>like to be radical here and suggest we scrap this, replacing it with 
>something like "Give notes in order of importance according to the 
>cataloger's judgment." The rule as written doesn't make much sense in the 
>MARC environment because (a) many of the things called "notes" in the rules 
>are actually given in MARC in fields other than 5XX; and (b) local system 
>display decisions remove much of the control catalogers have over the order 
>the notes appear in anyway. Examples of (a): the note prescribed in rule 
>7C1, to be the *first* note, is not given in a note field at all, but in 
>310/321. 7C4 notes would be given in 246 fields, including the local 
>binder's title note (246 with $5). The note in 7C5 might well also be given 
>in a 246. 7C8 notes are given in 76X-78X fields. Given all this, I think as 
>a practical matter prescriptions in the rules about the order things should 
>be in are pretty meaningless.
>
>7C9. The word "title-page" should be abbreviated to "t.p." in the note in 
>accordance with standard practice in catalog notes.
>
>7C12. I suggest you give the four required references in their Standard 
>Citation forms (with perhaps a footnoted explanation of what the citation 
>forms stand for--fuller bibliographical details for each of these would be 
>useful, anyway):
>
>Nelson & Seccombe.  Brit. newspapers and periodicals, 1641-1700
>NCBEL
>Evans
>
>Hoffmann is not in Standard Citations, so I suggest you declare what the 
>"official" form should be here so we are all doing it the same.
>
>7C15. Why not fill out the example?
>
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Robert L. Maxwell
>Special Collections and Ancient Languages Cataloger
>6430 Harold B. Lee Library
>Brigham Young University
>Provo, UT 84602
>(801) 378-5568
>robert_maxwell at byu.edu
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>
>