[DCRB-L] Gen'l Principles: a few comments

[Jain Fletcher]

Hi, everyone,
     I could not be more pleased with the way Joe Springer has 
presented the General Principles (GPs).  Joe's presentation is full of 
significance, with every phrase carrying deep import--yet is concise 
and very readable, for all that.  Along with Larry Creider (and for the 
reasons he gave), I really agree with the idea of aligning DCRM 
principles with those of FRBR.  I would also like to say how pleased I 
am to have such a compelling reason (as one of our pre-Conference 
"assignments") to give FRBR a closer reading.  (I have also put a hold 
on our library's copy of Svenonius' book, and look forward to reading 
that, as well.)  So, thank you, Joe, for giving us a completely 
appropriate and thoroughly engaging foundation to carry our rules.

     Moreover, I have enjoyed the subsequent comments, first from John 
Attig, then Joe's response to John and finally Larry's.  Aside from 
some of their observations, it seems to me that just a little more 
honing may be needed.  So, I am looking forward to seeing further 
commentary to that effect over this List, at ALA and at the Conference 
itself.  

     I do have a few comments of a honing nature.  The first relates to 
the fact that I had understood that these GPs would stand for all the 
materials covered in DCRM (books, music, maps, serials, mss).  While 
most of Joe's draft seems to indicate this broader coverage, the very 
first page contains some more limiting statements which I would like to 
request be made more broad.  Here they are, both from the first 
paragraph:  "As we approach the revisions that will go into 
_Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Books)_...", and later in 
the same paragraph, "Recent theoretical work helps us recognize that 
rare book cataloging rules can ...".  My suggestion is that, for the 
first instance, simply omit the qualifier "(Books)".  The sentence 
would work without it just as well (and if there's any concern about 
the fact that only one format is being "revised" while the others are 
being newly created, you could still think of the revision of DCRB as 
including both those elements, revision and new).  My suggestion for 
the second instance is to substitute the word "materials" for "books".  
The rest of the paper seems to use "materials" (or like words) fairly 
consistently, so it would be nice to see that consistent throughout the 
paper.  In fact, as I think about it, it might even be nice to point 
out that the new revision will now include these new formats.  This 
paragraph might just be the one in which to do that.

     At the top of the 2nd page, in the 3rd paragraph ("Although the 
entities of all three groups..."), I think that the point would be 
strengthened by stating that the examples given there to demonstrate 
FRBR terminology were taken from "early material". (It's hard to decide 
what to call it--sometimes I call it "historical", in the sense that 
'the more history accrues with any bibliographic entity, the more 
challenges it may present'.  If you think about it, the "historical 
clock" starts ticking almost immediately, so this can even be true of 
works that have come out in the current decade).

     I am grateful that John brought out the complicating issues 
surrounding the alignment of cataloging terminology.  I think it helps 
us remember that we will have to be cognizant of these issues as we try 
to align DCRM(B) with AACR2 (where in turn, DCRM(M) is trying to align 
with DCRM(B) along with relevant parts of AACR2 Ch. 5, etc.).

     I am even more grateful that Larry spoke so assertively about the 
point in the GP draft trying to align rule numbering.  Although it is 
an honorable goal, I find I also "flat out disagree" with this idea for 
practical reasons.  First of all, even in DCRB, extra numbered parts 
and sections were often needed to address issues specific to rare 
books.  We will probably continue to need this flexibility and should 
not paint ourselves into a corner by trying to align with a set of 
rules that does not completely address our material.  Which leads to 
the other point: we are now aligning more than one format.  Speaking 
for music alone, that format also needs some flexibility to incorporate 
specific rules that do not relate to books.  (In AACR2, as a 
single-volume work, it was easy to align from chapter to chapter, but 
now, with these being intended as stand-alone [whether electronic or 
print], we will have to act accordingly.)

     As you see, these are really minor points I am offering and the 
rest of the draft reads wonderfully.  Beyond the paper itself, I would 
like to suggest that we add a re-reading of Tanselle's "Descriptive 
Bibliography and Library Cataloging" to our assignment list.  I wrote a 
paper on it in Library School [for Dr. Svenonius], but Joe's draft 
reminds me that I could do with a refresher.
		Thanks again!		Jain

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

v: (310) 794-4096
f:  (310) 206-1864