[DCRM-L] Comments on DCRMB delta

[lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu]

I’ve had a chance to read through the delta version of DCRM(B), and have a few 
comments on I a document I think is shaping up very nicely.  Most of the 
comments are minor and editorial in nature.   
Larry Creider


0F1, p. 26.  Romanization. The rule says to make an explanatory note if the 
title is romanized.  I don’t think that this is current practice in dealing 
with modern materials.  Is there a particular reason why it is necessary for 
rare materials?

0F2, p. 27.  The rule says to transcribe ligatures by separating the letters.  
Are ligatures considered the same as diacritics in Appendix F?  Will the 
implementation of Unicode make a difference for current search practices that 
separate such ligatures?

0K, p. 33.  “If two or more distinct initialisms (or sets of initials), 
acronyms, or abbreviations appear in juxtaposition, separate them with a 
space.”  The example seems straightforward, but one could imagine others that 
are less so.  What are the searching implications of this?   If there are none, 
then is the rule necessary?  If there are implications, then we need to make 
mention of it in Appendix F (I don’t think the current point on 0K covers this 
point).

1D4, p. 39.  The rule on abridging other title information is imperative (“omit 
less important words
”).  Some catalogers try to transcribe titles completely 
whenever possible.  While it is a matter of cataloger’s judgment (deciding that 
the title “can be abridged without loss of essential information”), perhaps we 
might rephrase the first sentence to something like, “When other title 
information is very lengthy and can be abridged without loss of essential 
information, less important words or phrases may be omitted, using the mark of 
omission.”

1E6, p. 42.  If multiple statements of responsibility appear in sources other 
than the title page (or t.p. substitute), they should be bracketed and a note 
made as to their source per 1E1.  I think that the example in 1E6 needs some 
changing.

1F2, p. 45.What are the “satisfactory results” referred to in the last sentence 
of the rule?  It seems awfully vague.  Might it not make sense to say “if this 
method would result in a overly long title, then devise a collective title.”

4B1, p. 62 “[Breslau] : Bey Caspar Clossmann, Buchhandlern in Bresslaw 
zubefinden”
I don’t think that Breslau qualifies as “the modern English form of the name,” 
which is Wroclaw.   So the examples here and in 4C3 on p. 64 probably need to 
be changed.

4G, p. 73.  Last sentence, “should follow the alternative rule below
[superscript]17.”  The footnote and rule is actually on p. 69.

5B5, p. 77, last example.  Doesn’t the case 30 p. plus an additional leaf at 
end probably fall under  the second case of when the advertisements are 
integral to the publication?  Shouldn’t this be 30, [2] p.?    I’m not sure how 
the advertisements could not be part the final gathering without some sort of 
explanatory note.

5B10-5B11.  Please pardon my ignorance here, but what is the difference between 
a folded leaf and double leaves with the fold at top or fore edge?  I’m sure 
I’m forgetting something obvious; but if anyone else has the same problem, we 
might explain the difference here or in the glossary.

6A2, p. 91.  Why is a note needed when the series statement appears on both the 
series t.p. and the monograph t.p. when both are the same?  Are there cases 
where this fact matters?  Why are we recording variations in the series 
statement in the bibliographic record rather than in an authority record, 
especially when they are something like an ampersand?  

7B18, p. 109, does “two or more separately titled parts” include items with 
separate half-titles?  I assume it would since I have seen a few instances 
where the half-title starts new signatures and pagination and even where the 
only t.p. for vol. 2 is a half-title.

Appendix A, p. 116.  Concerning core-level DCRM(B), only PCC libraries can use 
encoding level 4 in leader/17 on OCLC.  That means, one cannot label a record 
core-level unless one’s institution is a BIBCO participant.   If I want to 
follow core-level DCRM(B), my only option is to use the 040 $e and add a note 
somewhere that this was core-level.  That would have no system significance.

Appendix A, p. 117, I would suggest that the title and imprint would provide as 
clear an indication of whether DCRM(B) has been used as rules 2.5B-2.5D.

Collection-level cataloging, p. 119.  The reference to APPM needs to be 
supplemented (or replaced) by a reference to DACS, and the reference to the Map 
Cataloging Manual in note 27 needs to be updated to reflect the new edition, 
which is friendlier to earlier materials.

Same, C, p. 120.  The reference to Kathleen Roe’s Arranging and Describing 
Archives needs to be updated.  It can no longer be forthcoming in 2003!

Appendix F, 0J, p. 142.  I’m probably being dense and don't have any tools with 
me at home, but I am having trouble visualizing how one makes an added entry 
for the title proper as it appears without the cataloger’s expansion of the 
contractions.  Does this mean in addition to amico[rum] and amicorum, one would 
have amico?  

Appendix G, p. 143.  Instead of saying “when the meaning of the hyphens is 
known,” it might be more accurate to say something on the lines of “when the 
cataloger can make plausible suggestions for the letters represented by the 
hyphens” or “when the letters replaced by hyphens would be obvious to the 
reader.”