[DCRB-L] FW: AACR2 more permissive than DCRB for illus??

[Jackie Dooley]

I agree with Richard that considerable freedom in giving types of illustrations in 300 |b is highly desirable. What would be the rationale for being restrictive? -Jackie Dooley

"Deborah J. Leslie" wrote:

> Read from the bottom up. This is a short exchange I had with Richard Noble about the types of illustrations allowed in the 300$b. In recent discussions, we decided to make DCRB more restrictive by limiting the allowable terms to those that have fixed fields codes. I'd be interested in responses to Richard's arguments. --DJL
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Noble [mailto:Richard_Noble at brown.edu]
> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 2:14 PM
> To: Deborah J. Leslie
> Subject: RE: AACR2 more permissive than DCRB??
>
> Deborah,
>
> What I intended to point out is that under AACR2 we actually have--optionally--the freedom to use whatever terms the cataloger may judge necessary to convey relevant information.
>
> This actually comes from the latest round of AACR2 amendments, since the not quite coherent preceding version read--
>
> 2.5C1. Give ill. for an illustrated printed monograph, unless the illustrations are all of one or more of the particular types mentioned in 2.5C2. ...
>
> 2.5C2. If the illustrations are all of one or more of the following types, and are considered to be important, give the appropriate term or abbreviation ... If only some of the illustrations belong to these types, give ill. first ...
>
> 2.5C1 was recast to prescribe ill. only; 2.5C2 was the restated as an option, worded pretty much as before except for the significant addition: "If none of these terms adequately describes the illustrations, use another term as appropriate." The examples now include "computer drawings" and "cross sections" to show the use terms not included in the list.
>
> Thus it is clear that any use of terms other than ill. is now to be regarded as an "option" (the normal AACR tactic in such cases), and that the listed terms do nothing more provide a controlled vocabulary for a selection of the innumerable (or at least unenumerated) types that a cataloger might optionally specify.
>
> DCRB 5C2 seems to have anticipated this loosening up by treating the list as exemplary ("such terms as") rather than exhaustive, and adding the term "diagrams" following "coats of arms" to the list in AACR2 2.5C2. (Not to speak of rewording the whole affair in a much more coherent way.)
>
> I haven't done much of this (having had my blinkers on with regard to this new option); I suppose "anatomical overlays", "volvelles", "charts", "portolan charts", etc. etc. might be examples, often depending on the nature of the book. In general it would seem that the element has been opened up to allow for greater specificity.
>
> The functional purpose of the change must have been (and the result at any rate is) to allow significant information about the contents to be brought "forward" into an area of the description likely to be found in brief displays, and to be more precisely keyword searchable in systems that allow restriction to specific fields or subfields. (The DCRB option to specify technique has the same good effect.) Granted, the indexing (at least) can be done, with greater refinement, by way of gmgpc headings; and one might well suggest that any terms employed in the 300 $b should, whenever it is possible, be drawn from that or any other applicable thesaurus, to provide some degree of consistency.)
>
> Obiter dictum: "Consistency" is the key term arrived at above. The nature of special collections is such that the kind of consistency aimed at under the "regular" rules--different catalogers at different institutions producing nearly identical records for the same entities--is neither attainable nor desirable, unless it is to be dictated (good luck) to every original cataloger always to produce some sort of generic DCRM(B) ur-record (CORE?) as well as a local version. The best we can do or should aim to do is to facilitate the creation of well-formed rare/special collections oriented catalog records, consistent with each other in essentials; and, even more importantly, the building of coherent catalogs of such materials.
>
> If any of this makes sense, in your judgment, you're welcome to post it on DCRB-L and see what others might have to say.
>
> At 3/22/03    11:01 AM, you wrote:
>
> Richard,
>
> Do you want *more* freedom in the use of terms? If so, what terms do you think you would use?
>
> Deborah
>
> p.s. You can move this to DCRB-L if you like.
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Noble [mailto:Richard_Noble at brown.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 5:34 PM
> To: Deborah J. Leslie
> Subject: AACR2 more permissive than DCRB??
>
> Why this little thought only now dawned upon me I can't imagine; but I note that AACR2 2.5C2 in no way limits the terms usable in 300 $b, once one has decided to exercise the option of characterizing illustrations beyond "ill." It does specify certain terms that should be used to designate those particular kinds of illustrations, but goes on to say: "If none of these terms adequately describes the illustrations, use another term as appropriate"; the examples include "computer drawings" and "cross sections". One is not limited to specifying only what appears in the list.
>
> DCRB 5C2 is rather more vague, I fear, about this permissiveness, in referring to its list as "one or more such terms as the following". This rather foggily reflects the intent of AACR2 2.5C2: to conventionalize the terminology for certain illustrations while allowing for the specification of others ad lib. It seems to provide even greater temptation to the head cat who doesn't like seeing things in records which aren't explicitly called for in the rules. (The fact that DCRB adds "diagrams", as we often noted in our discussions, is thus not a matter of adding to a limited body of terms, but simply asserting that diagrams are not "adequately described" as "ill.")
>
> Note also that, for a change, even the LCRI is permissive: nobody else need be restricted to "ill." and "map(s)".
>
> Have I been in error (brainwashed by the aforesaid head cats (meow!), perhaps) into thinking that these lists were restrictive as well as prescriptive?
>
> Cheers, Richard
>
> RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY
> PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-2093 : RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU

--
       Jackie M. Dooley, Head of Special Collections and Archives
UCI Libraries, P.O. Box 19557, Univ. of California, Irvine, CA 92623-9557
   Internet: jmdooley at uci.edu  Phone: 949/824-4935  Fax: 949/824-2472