Windy,
Thanks for setting me straight on this point.
Larry
Quoting Windy Lundy <windy.lundy at colorado.edu>:
> Larry,
>
> With respect to your comment about App. A, p. 116, and the DCRM(B)
> core-level record, the OCLC Bib Formats and Standards defines Encoding
> level
> 4 for use by any library, whether BIBCO or not. A BIBCO record will have
> "pcc" in the 042. While I have not created any DCRB core records in OCLC,
> in some research I have been conducting I have found examples of DCRB core
> records that were created by several libraries that are not BIBCO
> libraries.
> So I think the wording in App. 2 is accurate as is the second paragraph of
> App. C., p. 131.
>
>
> Windy
>
> *************
> M. Winslow Lundy
> Catalog Librarian
> University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries
> 184 UCB
> Boulder, CO 80309
> windy.lundy at colorado.edu
> phone: (303) 492-3918
> Fax: (303) 492-0494
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dcrm-l-admin at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-admin at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf
> Of lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu
> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 2:34 PM
> To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
> Subject: [DCRM-L] Comments on DCRMB delta
>
> 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."
>
>
>