[DCRM-L] DCRM rev. - Obj & Principles, idea #2

[Jain Fletcher]

Hi, everyone,

A few days ago I sent a message about the principles statement asking that 
it be broadened to cover all materials. That message was supported by the 
DCRM(M) Task Group.  Today my message is about another piece of terminology 
that I’d like to suggest be changed.  However, it should be noted that the 
following opinion is mine alone.

The other change I would make in the principles statement has to do with 
using the term “general cataloging” to describe “modern-day cataloging”--as 
opposed to “rare materials cataloging”.  My first reaction to the 
construction was positive: it seemed to be a new way of describing this 
contrast and I hoped for a while that the terminology problem had been 
settled.  But further thinking about it has caused me to change my mind. 
For many reasons, I believe the term “general” does not work for this 
construction.  To begin with, in reading through the statement, I believe 
the word has insufficient energy for the purposes, and is further diluted 
by the fact that it is used often in other contexts within the statement. 
But even more importantly, it does not really capture the situation between 
these two broad aspects of cataloging.  Since I believe that capturing the 
situation correctly is crucial to our statement, I have thought very 
carefully about this.

As we all know, the entire reason we have to put together our rules is 
because of fundamental differences between the two broad sets of materials. 
But what is the heart of those differences?  As I have thought about it, I 
believe it comes down to the concept of “currency”.  When you think about 
it, when undertaking revision or updates, most cataloging codes target 
currently-produced materials.  In doing so, they make every attempt to 
comprehend future trends, in order to retain the ability of these codes to 
address the “currency” of incoming materials for as long as possible. So, 
as those codes have been updated, they have taken into account the 
increasing amount of standards applied to the composition of published 
materials (e.g., common practices in the layout of information [t.p. and 
t.p. verso content, production details, etc.], associated numbers [ISBDs, 
ISSNs, music publisher numbers, etc.] and so on).  They also try to take 
into account most of the vagaries from those standards, but do so only in 
the context of very recent or current production applications, not much 
earlier production.  The “use-by date” of any latest version of a 
cataloging code is approximately a century.  Of course, the actual 
“currency” changes all the time (is a moving target, if you will). Still, 
it is most often the case that the somewhat older materials found in 
“regular-flow” cataloging backlogs can also still be fairly easily 
described by the updated (current) codes.

On the other hand, as these production standards become increasingly 
applied to more recent materials, there is a whole history of material 
where, certainly, standards existed, but they changed from 
publisher/printer to publisher/printer; they were not as uniformly applied 
as they are currently.  So the gap widens and continues to widen.  Our 
rules are trying to explain the past and do their best to cross the breech 
(description-wise, anyway).

Therefore, to my mind, the operative concept is “current”, but it is not so 
easy to apply it and have it make sense.  Part of the problem is trying to 
make a quick construction, with an adjective in front of “cataloging”, but 
there are problems with the meaning of “modern cataloging”, “current 
cataloging”, “general cataloging”, etc.  So, instead of “adjective/noun” 
formulation, it may be necessary to use longer phrases. To me, the overall 
concept of “cataloging of current materials” really seems appropriate and 
isn’t that much more clunky to construct.

The following re-edit of the rules is my attempt at changing that 
terminology, just so everyone can see how it might look. This re-edit also 
incorporates the edits (“materials” for “monographs”) I was advocating in 
my last message.  Also, it turns out I could not resist making some rather 
big changes to one paragraph (it’s number 4, but I can’t remember if it’s 
the first or second “4”; I'm not asking for approval for that one [yet], 
just letting you know why it is fairly different from the delta draft).
					--Jain

***************************************************************************

OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES

The instructions contained in Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials are 
formulated according to the objectives and principles set forth below. 
These objectives and principles seek to articulate the purpose and nature 
of specialized cataloging rules for rare materials. They are informed by 
long-accepted concepts of traditional bibliographic scholarship as well as 
by more recent theoretical work that has proven fundamental to the 
construction and revision of cataloging codes, namely the International 
Federation of Library Associations and Institutions’ Functional 
Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and Elaine Svenonius’s The 
Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization. They assume an equal 
familiarity with FRBR terms used to categorize entities that are the 
products of intellectual or artistic endeavor (work, expression, 
manifestation, and item) and bibliographic terms used to differentiate 
among textual variants (e.g., edition, issue, impression, and state). It is 
hoped that these objectives and principles will provide catalogers, and 
administrators of cataloging operations, with a better understanding of the 
underlying rationale for DCRM instructions, especially when these deviate 
from the instructions contained in the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules 
(AACR2).

Objectives of DCRM

The primary objectives that apply to the cataloging of rare materials are 
no different than the primary objectives of the cataloging of current 
materials. FRBR identifies those objectives as meeting user requirements to 
find, identify, select, and obtain materials. However, users of rare 
materials will often bring specialized needs to these tasks that cannot be 
met by the cataloging rules for current materials. In addition, rare 
materials may not conform to the assumptions of standard production 
practices that lie behind the rules for the cataloging of current 
materials. The following DCRM objectives are intended to account for these 
important differences.

1) Users shall be able to distinguish clearly among different 
manifestations of an expression or work.
	The ability to distinguish among different manifestations of an expression 
or work is critical to the user tasks of identifying and selecting 
bibliographic resources. Cataloging practice for current material assumes 
that reliance on abbreviated and normalized transcription methods is 
sufficient to distinguish among manifestations. However, users of rare 
material tend to require fuller and more faithful transcriptions, 
especially in the publication, distribution, etc., area, in order to 
distinguish among manifestations. Additionally, the provision of greater 
detail in the physical description area and the careful description of 
various anomalies in the note area may be critical to the task of 
identifying separate manifestations. These practices will also contribute 
to the ability of users to distinguish among exemplars at the item level, 
allowing the identification and comparison of variant printings, states, 
and copies as needed.

2) Users shall be able to perform most identification and selection tasks 
independently of direct access to the materials.
	Users of rare materials frequently perform identification and selection 
tasks under circumstances that require the bibliographic description to 
stand as a detailed surrogate for the item (e.g., consultation from a 
distance, limited access due to the fragile condition of item, inability to 
physically browse collections housed in restricted areas). Accuracy of 
bibliographic representation increases subsequent efficiency for both users 
and collection managers. The same accuracy contributes to the long-term 
preservation of the materials themselves, e.g., by reducing unnecessary 
circulation of materials that do not specifically meet the user’s 
requirements.

3) Users shall be able to investigate physical processes and 
post-production history and context exemplified in materials described.
	Users of rare materials routinely investigate a variety of artifactual and 
post-production intellectual aspects of materials. For example, they will 
attempt to locate materials that are related by printing methods, 
illustrative processes, binding styles and structures, provenance, form and 
genre, etc. The ability of users to identify the materials that fit these 
criteria depends upon full and accurate descriptions and the provision of 
corresponding access points.

4) Users shall be able to access materials whose production or presentation 
characteristics deviate from modern conventions.
	Cataloging codes that address current material routinely distinguish among 
manifestations through reliance on explicit bibliographic information 
presented in conventional form (e.g., a formal edition statement on the 
title page or its verso). In rare materials, such explicit information is 
often lacking; furthermore, there is often insufficient evidence to 
distinguish among different manifestations. Since cataloging codes for 
current materials do not sufficiently address these important 
distinguishing aspects, constructing descriptions for rare materials 
according to current codes do not meet its user needs in this area.

Principles for Construction of DCRM

To meet the objectives listed above, DCRM relies upon the following six 
principles. These principles were influenced by the general principles of 
bibliographic description offered by Svenonius: the principle of user 
convenience (with the sub-principle of common usage), the principle of 
representation (with the sub-principle of accuracy), the principle of 
sufficiency and necessity (with the sub-principle of significance), the 
principle of standardization, and the principle of integration.

1) Rules shall provide guidance for descriptions that allow users to 
distinguish clearly among different manifestations of an expression or work.
	This relates to user objective 1 stated above. It derives particularly 
from the general principle of user convenience and has implications for all 
areas of the bibliographic description. The principle enables 
distinguishing among items as well as manifestations.

2) Rules shall provide for accurate representations of the entity as it 
describes itself, notably through instructions regarding transcription, 
transposition, and omission.
	This relates to user objectives 2 and 4 stated above. It derives 
particularly from the general principles of representation (with its 
related sub-principle of accuracy) and of standardization. Precise 
representation is of particular relevance in those areas of the description 
that require transcription (the title and statement of responsibility area, 
the edition area, the publication, distribution, etc., area, and the series 
area), but should not be ignored in the physical description and note 
areas. The general principles of representation and standardization stand 
in greater tension with each other when cataloging rare materials. 
Faithfulness to both principles may require descriptive and annotative 
treatment necessarily exceeding the norms (and at times the vocabulary) 
established as sufficient for the description of current materials.

3) Rules shall provide guidance for the inclusion of manifestation-specific 
and item-specific information that permits users to investigate physical 
processes and post-production history and context exemplified in the item 
described.
	This relates to user objective 3 stated above. It derives particularly 
from the general principles of sufficiency and necessity and the related 
sub-principle of significance. Application of the principle requires that 
rules for rare materials cataloging provide additional guidance on access 
points, particularly in cases where such information is not integral to the 
manifestation, expression, or work described. Rules for item-specific 
information appearing in the note area may prescribe standard forms for 
presentation of information (addressing general principles of user 
convenience and common usage). Application of such rules presumes both a 
user’s need for such information and a cataloger’s ability to properly 
describe such aspects.

4) Rules shall provide for the inclusion of all elements of bibliographical 
significance.
	This principle is related to all of the user objectives stated above. 
Cataloging rules for current materials routinely strive for both brevity 
and clarity, principles affiliated with the general principle of 
sufficiency. In describing rare materials however, too great an emphasis on 
brevity may become the occasion for insufficiency and lack of clarity. In 
cataloging rare materials, brevity of description may be measured best 
against the functional requirements of the particular bibliographic 
description rather than against the average physical length of other 
bibliographic descriptions in the catalog. The tension between rules for 
rare materials that promote accurate representation of an item and yet do 
not exceed the requirements of sufficiency is great. Reference to the 
principle of user convenience may offer correct resolution of such tensions.

5) Rules shall conform to the structure and language of the latest revision 
of AACR2 to the extent possible; ISBD(A) shall serve as a secondary 
reference point.
	This principle relates to general principles of standardization and user 
convenience (with the latter’s sub-principle of common usage). DCRM assumes 
that users of cataloging descriptions constructed in accordance to its 
provisions also operate in contexts where AACR2 is a norm for the 
cataloging of current materials. In addition, the cataloging community 
within which DCRM has been developed has a strong association with AACR2 as 
interpreted and applied by the Library of Congress. DCRM uses existing 
AACR2 vocabulary in a manner consistent with AACR2; use of any additional 
or specialized vocabulary necessary for description and access of rare 
materials will occur in a clear and consistent manner in DCRM rules, 
appendices, and glossaries. DCRM does not introduce rules that are not 
required by differences expected between rare and current materials. 
Numbering of areas within DCRM conforms to the structure of ISBD as 
implemented in AACR2. When an existing AACR2 rule satisfies the 
requirements of cataloging rare materials, DCRM text is modeled on AACR2 
text (revising examples as useful for illustration). In cases where the 
language of AACR2 is not precise enough to cover necessary distinctions or 
may introduce confusion when dealing with rare materials, DCRM uses 
carefully-considered alternate wording. Wording of relevant ISBD(A) 
standards will also be considered when deviating from AACR2. However, 
ISBD(A) is a standard rather than a cataloging code; AACR2, as a cataloging 
code, will inevitably provide closer models for rule formulation.

6) Rules shall be compatible with DCRB except in cases where changes are 
necessary to align more closely to current revisions of AACR2 or to conform 
to the above principles.
	This principle also relates to general principles of both standardization 
and user convenience (with the latter’s sub-principle of common usage). 
Changes to prior DCRB cataloging practices should be made only after 
careful consideration of the value or necessity of such changes.
****************************************************************************


Jain Fletcher
Head, Collections & Technical Services Division
Department of Special Collections
Young Research Library - UCLA
Box 951575
Los Angeles, CA   90095-1575

v: (310) 794-4096
f: (310) 206-1864
e: jfletchr at library.ucla.edu