[DCRM-L] Discussion questions for DCRM(B) gamma

[Deborah J. Leslie]

This is the list of discussion questions from the ALA 2004 annual meeting in Orlando. We welcome any discussion from DCRM-L list members on these issues. Notes on the discussion itself are to be found in the committee meeting minutes: http://www.folger.edu/bsc/2004.2minutes.doc

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee

DCRM(B) Gamma Draft: Summary of Changes and Questions for Discussion at ALA Annual 2004

The following summary and questions have been prepared to help guide discussion of the DCRM(B) gamma draft at the RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee meeting at ALA Annual 2004. Additional topics of discussion are welcome. DCRB-L discussion of these and other questions is encouraged.

Summary of Major Changes from Beta Draft

--Added "Objectives and Principles" (revised from stand-alone original document; expect to incorporate omitted "Purpose & Scope" and "Background" sections in DRCM(B) "Preface" or Area 0 "Scope and Purpose")
--Re-organized Area 1 rules to follow AACR2 more closely (statements of responsibility now 1E rather than 1G)
--Revised 2D1 (see below) to try to clarify and help distinguish from 2C1
--Revised 4A6 (see below) to make the rule easier to consult
--Added examples to 4F and 4G
--Revised 5B9 (see below). Letterpress tables and illustrated title pages now both treated as plates if not integral. The former is a reversal from the Beta draft.
--Re-organized Area 7 rules (now 7A-B not 7A-C) to follow AACR2
--Expanded 7B9 to give instructions for signatures that do not follow standard 23-letter pattern
--Revised 7B14 so that reference notes are no longer required for incunabula
--Loosened up requirement in 7B19 to include designation of holding institution in local notes
--Changed order of the appendices.
--Added new Appendix A "Levels of Cataloging" (revised from stand-alone original document "Toolkit for Exposing Hidden Collections"; condensed introductory paragraphs and expanded descriptions of cataloging options).
--Renamed and condensed Appendix B "Bibliographic Variants" (was Appendix A in beta)
--Added new Appendix E "Collection-Level Records".
--Revised Appendix F "DCRMB Code for Records" to include more levels of cataloging and instructions for treatment of earlier codes when revising descriptions.
--Expanded Appendix G "Title Access Points" (was Appendix B in beta)
--Renamed, expanded, and revised Appendix H "Early Letter Forms and Symbols" (was Appendix C in beta). Left room at end for Deborah's proposed summary of historical development of certain letters.

General Questions

MARC. Do we need to state that we have intentionally written the rules to be independent of MARC? Area 7 is especially problematic; the rules instruct us to preface notes with labels such as "References" or "Contents" but MARC is designed to automatically generate the labels through use of specific numeric tags. Comments on DCRB-L have indicated some discomfort with current instructions. If we do need to acknowledge the MARC problem, where would be most appropriate? In the Preface? Do we need another Principle? Should we make a distinction between the rules proper and the appendices (noting that the appendices may reference MARC)? Would it be better to simply insert footnotes in Area 7 as appropriate and remind the cataloger that the label is not needed if using MARC?

Formatting. Editorial Team tentatively planning on changing formatting to make all paragraphs left-justified rather than indented and to use hanging indents for all examples. Reactions?

Organization. Appendices A and B could be combined to form a new Pre-Cataloging Decisions section that would come between the Objectives & Principles section and Area 0. Would this be preferable or do people like having the two sections in separate appendices?

Terminology. The Objectives & Principles section relies on FRBR concepts and terminology much more heavily than the remainder of the rules, which tend to use traditional bibliographic language (edition, issue, impression, state) and AACR2 language (edition). Are there ways to better integrate these sometimes overlapping concepts and terms? Do we need to better incorporate FRBR terminology throughout the rules?

Headings. Do we need to explicitly state that DCRM(B) rules do not include rules for headings (with the exception of some mention in Appendix E)? If so, where? Preface? Principles?

Objectives & Principles

Monographic Focus. Is the section too monograph-specific? Do we want one statement of principles that will apply equally to all DCRM modules or is it okay for the statement of principles to vary somewhat from module to module?

Principle 5. Can we really claim that the rules follow AACR2 text verbatim when existing AACR2 rules are adequate for cataloging rare materials? Not sure this is always true and AACR2 is dynamic rather than static. Should we soften this principle?

IFLA Principles. Do we want to acknowledge any debt to the IFLA Statement of International Cataloguing Principles? Should we re-examine our principles (and rules) in light of this document, which was issued after the original DCRM Working Conference, and is still in draft form? [http://www.ddb.de/news/pdf/statement_draft.pdf]

Joe Springer's Questions. "One of the positive comments I remember on the original Working Principles draft (March 2003) was that catalogers thought it would help administrators understand why rare materials cataloging differed from general materials cataloging. I think some of that aspect was removed in my April draft, and perhaps even a bit more in Manon's reworking. Although the statement's function in DCRM(B) is properly explanatory rather than apologetic, we might still want to elicit response about the apologetic value of the statement.  (Questions for readers of the draft might be: Are the "Objectives and Principles" useful to catalogers in understanding the rules? Do the "Objectives and Principles" serve to clarify the purposes of rare materials cataloging to non-catalogers/library administrators?)"

Area 0

0H. 3rd par. David Woodruff suggested that LCRI 25.1 might be a better reference than LCRI 1.0E. I have added both LCRIs for now, pending closer review. Any thoughts?

0H. penultimate par. David Woodruff has suggested changes to the gothic capitals section. Probably no time for discussion here but would welcome comments in writing.

0J2. Restored phrase "in continuance of the manuscript tradition" because didn't want the cataloger to think that apostrophes in modern contractions and periods in abbreviations should be replaced with missing letters supplied in square brackets. Comments? Is there a better way to express this?

Area 1

1F2. example. David Woodruff has questioned whether "dilatino" and "lamorte" have been transcribed correctly without internal spaces. Do we need instructions in area 0 on whether to insert spaces not present in the source?
Area 2

2C1 and 2C3. Instructs not to treat a statement that doesn't name a person or body as a statement of responsibility. Does not follow same approach as 1G12. Is this a problem or is it okay to have two different models for two different areas (note: the instructions follow AACR2).

2D. Larry Creider has pointed out that the distinction between the second example in 2C1 and the example in 2D1 is not clear (nor is the AACR2/DCRB phrase "Named Revision of an Edition"). Note that 2C1 refers to revisions from the previous edition but 2D1 refers to revisions from previous versions of the same edition. Deleted the word "named" from "Named Revision of an Edition" as it seemed to be a source of some of the confusion, though this does represent a deviation from AACR2/DCRB. Also added an editorial comment to the example in 2D1. Are the instructions in 2C1 and 2D1 any better distinguished? If not, any recommendations? Is the distinction worthwhile?

Area 4

4A6. Deleted first paragraph and added section "headers" in bold. Do the revisions make this rather long rule any easier to consult?

Area 5

5B3. Brian Hillyard has questioned the instruction not to indicate unnumbered pages at the beginning of a sequence if the pages fall logically within the sequence (counting back to 1). He would prefer [4], 3-40 p. over [2], 40 p. especially in cases of doubt. Comments?

5B9. In this draft, letterpress tables and illustrated title pages are both treated as plates if not integral; the treatment of tables does not depart from DCRB; the treatment of illustrated title pages is a departure from DCRB. Regarding the latter issue, Brian Hillyard has said: "I have re-read Bowers on all this, but I would comment (1) as influenced the change of name from BDRB to DCRB, we are not engaged in bibliographical description, and (2) even Bowers says (p.200) "On practical grounds, however, there is some reason to differentiate engraved title-leaves, as well as frontispiece portraits or vignettes, from the ordinary plate in the body of the book" and "Nevertheless, it must be admitted that there is a certain convenience in associating an engraved title or prefixed portrait more directly with the printed sheets and in the collational formula". Bowers is concerned with collational formulae and I'm not citing him directly in support of not treating engraved title pages as plates: the point is rather that he does provide evidence for a view of engraved title leaves as standing slightly apart from "normal" leaves of plates."

Reactions? Whatever is eventually decided, the glossary definition of plate may need substantial revision; the definition should probably address both content (not necessarily illustrative?) and mechanics of construction.

5B15. Larry Creider has raised some questions about the proposed use of "panels" to describe folded sheets and how this might fit in with DCRM rules for cartographic materials. Comments?

5C3. Added final paragraph with instruction not to consider illustrations as colored if the text and illustrations are printed in a single color (e.g. printed in green throughout). Comments?

5C6 and 5E2. Larry Creider has noted that AACR2 considers maps and illustrations in a pocket to be accompanying material and would record them at the end of the physical description. is there a rare book reason to depart from AACR2? Are these rules necessary?

Area 6

6A2. Larry Creider has questioned the instruction to note series statements that appear on both the series title page and the monograph title page (especially notes such as "Series statement also appears on t.p. as: ...."). The instruction is included because it was assumed that users of special collection materials would want, or would expect, the catalog record to provide a reliable surrogate for the monographic title page. Is this a false assumption?

Area 7

7B9. Are instructions for signatures that do not follow standard 23-letter pattern okay?

7B19. We are deviating from AACR2 in putting local notes last. Is there a "rare book reason" to justify this ordering of notes and change from DCRB?

Appendix A "Levels of Cataloging"

Comments on original document? Comments on revisions from original document? Non-MARC21 options to suggest?

Appendix B "Bibliographic Variants"

Reactions to the change of name for this appendix (was "Criteria for Creating a New Record")? Reactions to deletion of initial paragraph and bullets?

Appendix C "Collection-Level Records"

Is this appendix too MARC-centric?

Appendix F "DCRMB Code for Records"

Comments on instructions for treatment of earlier codes when revising descriptions?

Appendix H "Early Letter Forms and Symbols"

Larry Creider has wondered whether a superscript "o" over a "u" is sometimes more like the breve found over "u" in older German and gothic penmanship to indicate that the two minims are a "u" and not an "n". Comments from others knowledgeable about such matters? Would the transcription still be a small superscript circle?

________________________________
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
Head of Cataloging
Folger Shakespeare Library
201 East Capitol St., SE
Washington, DC 20003
202.675-0369
djleslie at folger.edu