Overall format of DCRM: review for discussion

Sat May 5 15:56:00 MDT 2001

Hi all:

Not sure I remarked  specifically on Deborah's point before, but I TOTALLY
AGREE. And in some specially collections not only is it DCR(M) and related
stuff, but also APPM, GIHC,Maps mAnual, etc.

I do think we need to reach a suitable "marriage" between theory/layout and
realities of actual use by catalogers and other processing staff.

As to Jain's other remarks == very helpful in putting a realistic
perspective on things.

Patrick

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dcrb-l at lib.byu.edu [mailto:owner-dcrb-l at lib.byu.edu]On
Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2001 7:36 AM
To: dcrb-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: RE: Overall format of DCRM: review for discussion

I think Jain makes some very good points, and I definitely would like to
see either 1) more discussion on the intended format, or 2) an explicit
acceptance of the idea of separate manuals. Let me contribute to the
discussion.

I was surprised to see Jain leave off the biggest CON to a unified,
AACR2-like organization:  adding yet another layer of documentation to
the cataloging process. I have never been happy with the current
organization of AACR2, with having to consult both chapters 1 and 2 in
order to do descriptive cataloging of a modern book. With rare books, we
have another layer: DCRB on top of AACR2 chapters 1 & 2. I am not
telling any of you anything new. With a DCRM single manual concept, I
would have to consult AACR2 chapters 1 and 2, DCRM(G), and DCRM(B) in
order to catalog a rare book.

This is too much. And of course it doesn't even begin to take into
account the other sources of documentation: LCRI's, LCSH, SCM, MARC,
thesauri. I am not opposed general *principles* being developed that
apply to all rare materials covered by DCRM, but general *rules* in
addition to specialized rules? I really don't think that approach
commends itself to coherent cataloging documentation. Our colleagues
will not thank us.

Deborah J. Leslie
Head of Cataloging
Folger Shakespeare Library
201 East Capitol Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003
202.675-0369 (phone)
202.675-0328 (fax)
djleslie at folger.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: JAIN FLETCHER [mailto:jfletchr at library.ucla.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:22 PM
To: DCRBlist
Cc: Cape, Stephen; Lorimer, Nancy; Tabb, Bruce; Wolfe, Charlotte;
Boorman, Stanley
Subject: Overall format of DCRM: review for discussion

Hello, BSCers,
I am sending this message because I became concerned at our last
meeting about a possible trend I thought observed there to re-consider
the format of DCRM.  This emerged first when we were discussing the
language in DCRM (trying to keep it in line with that of AACR2).  At
one point, as Bob spoke about it, he said he realized that he kept
visualizing DCRM in the format that AACR2 currently has: a general
chapter for descriptive rules with ensuing chapters for the different
materials covered.  At first he apologized for describing DCRM in a
format we had not chosen, but then said that maybe we ought to consider
a single volume after all.  A similar point came out a bit later, as we
were discussing trying to maintain identical rule numbering across
materials.  There appeared to be a general agreement at the meeting to
the idea of having a single volume.  Before agreement to this idea
becomes much stronger, I would like to re-visit the points I made at
ALA mid-winter 2000, which had convinced the Cte to opt for the
separate manuals.

I hope that, if needed, this will engender further discussion and a
final vote.  Whatever we finally decide, I would like our resolution
(with rationale) to appear on the DCRB revision page, so that our
direction is clear and all of the Working Groups can plan accordingly.

In reviewing my notes from that meeting, I notice that I made the
following points, before talking about the PROS and CONS of each
approach:
	-- Advocate no attempt at rule number correlation beyond area
designations (this resolve seems to have vacillated again at the past
meeting)
	-- Advocate that we have separate designations for each
material type (as we have since decided, e.g., B for books, PM for
printed music, etc.), whether DCRM's format ends up being a single book
or a manual.  This way the rules can be unambiguously referenced; these
designations also have implications for the $e of the 040.

Also, before I presented the PROS and CONS at that meeting, I reminded
everyone that I was not yet addressing the medium by which these rules
would likely be delivered, but mentioned that it would probably be both
print and electronic.  The implications of either or both of these
possibilities should be weighed as we consider the format of DCRM.  Now
is probably the time to discuss that matter thoroughly, as well.

Considerations for a single volume, with a chapter for each format:
	PROS
	-- Would have an overall chapter for general rules, which
	should help shorten ensuing chapters
	-- Would have an all-inclusive glossary and index
	-- Appendices ("Early letter forms"; "Minimal level records")
	would cover all materials

	CONS
	-- Would be humungous!
	-- To help keep size down, the creators of rules for each
	material would be under the gun to keep their chapters as brief
	as possible.  This would mean they would have to comb carefully
	through the wording of their chapter to delete repetitive
	instructions; they would probably also be asked to use as few
	examples as possible.  All of this can lead to an obscuring of
	clarity for non-book format users.
	-- Because of the fewer materials being considered in DCRM, it
	would be impossible to align chapter numbering with that of
	AACR2 (alternative proposal: the chapters could be headed with
	material name and the rule numbers preceded with each
	material's acronym [e.g., PM0A, B5B5]).

Considerations for having a separate manual for each material:
	PROS
	-- Each could provide an introductory chapter, which would not
	necessarily be a chapter of general rules, but one giving the
	overarching principles for DCRM rules (such as the importance
	of transcription; information suited to the material and its
	own rare/special issues
	-- There would be room for a sufficient number
	of examples appropriate to the material
	-- There would be room for "instructional text" (helpful for
	non-book catalogers unfamiliar with rare/special material
	cataloging)

	CONS (or, "challenges")
	-- Glossary, index, appendices, etc., would have to be repeated
	for each manual but "weeded" to include only useful terminology
	appropriate to the material
	-- Each rule would have to be fully stated, with its language
	in line with that of the other manuals

Some follow-up considerations:
I think we need to remember that most of the users of the rules for the
non-book formats will come from a relatively small pool of catalogers
who are often located in areas away from a special collections or a
main cataloging department.  Putting these rules out in a large
(possibly expensive) single volume would possibly prevent these people
from acquiring it for their own locations.  Even if DCRM were to be put
out in one volume in electronic format, it is likely that these same
people would print or download only the chapter useful to them, thus
missing out on the full context given elsewhere within.  Having a fully
self-contained manual for each format (whether in print, electronic or
both) would solve most concerns raised here.

Jain Fletcher
Cataloger, Dept. of Special Collections
A1713 YRL
Research Library - UCLA
Box 951575
Los Angeles, CA   90095-1575

v: (310) 825-2422
f:  (310) 206-1864