[DCRB-L] Re: General principles draft, 20021116

[Joe Springer]

Here is the response I made to John Attig's Nov. message (just posted to 
the list via Deborah J. Leslie).
Joe Springer

>Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:31:34 -0500
>To: John Attig <jxa16 at psulias.psu.edu>
>From: Joe Springer <joeas at goshen.edu>
>Subject: Re: General principles draft, 20021116
>Cc: DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu
>
>John,
>Thanks for your helpful comments.  (Deborah, I would suggest you forward 
>this to the "copy all" DCRM group, so all of them can benefit from John's 
>comments as well.)
>A few quick comments on your comments:
>1) I agree that someone reading this draft without reference to FRBR would 
>not understand that a named edition is usually a distinct expression as 
>well as a distinct manifestation. I tried to be quite brief in introducing 
>the terminology of FRBR, and was/am more concerned that we grasp the 
>concepts of manifestation & item.  I believe that is ultimately in 
>describing manifestation (whether or not the manifestation is also an 
>expression) and item that the differing needs of general and rare 
>materials cataloging rules occur.  My sense is that when we are 
>distinguishing things as either work or expression, rare materials needs 
>are not all that different from general cataloging.  Anyone working 
>seriously on these principles will not be able to avoid reading the entire 
>FRBR.  For the benefit of others, perhaps we could strengthen the text's 
>reference to the full FRBR and also make clear (poss. in a note) that 
>different editions may be expressions as well as manifestations.
>2)  I appreciate your suggestions for making more explicit reference to 
>the concept of user tasks--working further on that should improve the 
>usefulness of the document.
>3) regarding b):  Thanks for the reminder that AACR itself is not 
>static.  I was remembering in writing that comment, the problems we 
>encountered in the BDRB-to-DCRB revision process when we encountered 
>differences in the definition of basic terms (whether AACR2 or 
>ISBD(A)).  I believe that as a result of that revision, we won't face the 
>issue as often in the DCRB-to-DCRM revision.  In writing/revising though, 
>we will still need to bear in mind that certain terms (e.g. "area") have a 
>specific AACR2 meaning.  I believe in the context of cataloging rules we 
>need to limit ourselves routinely to the narrowly-defined AACR2 meaning 
>and look for synonymous "general vocabulary" we terms when we mean 
>something broader or other than the AACR2 meaning.
>4) regarding c): Yes, we can make this tension more explicit.
>5) regarding g):  You are right that I focused more on DCRM-AACR2 
>integration.  We will have to be alert to the meaning you  point 
>out.  This is one of several places where one sees the tension between a 
>document that deals at one level with the immediate/DCRM(Books) revision, 
>and one that should also be useful in looking at DCRM regardless of format.
>6) I appreciate your assessment of the succinct special requirements.
>
>Joe Springer

Joe A. Springer, Curator
Mennonite Historical Library
Goshen College 1700 S. Main St.
Goshen, IN 46526  (joeas at goshen.edu)
574-535-7421     FAX 574-535-7438