[DCRM-L] DCRM(B) Delta draft comments for BCS meeting 1/15/05

[Alex Thurman]

Hi all. I'm new to this forum, but would like to join in if possible. Here 
are a few thoughts on the DCRM(B) draft/discussion, in case I don't speak 
up during the meeting at ALA.

Alex Thurman
Cataloger
Columbia University Libraries
at2186 at columbia.edu

Comments/Questions on DCRM(B) Delta Draft, for BCS meeting, 1/15/05

Objectives/Principles Statement
I agree with Jain Fletcher's suggestion that "monographs" be replaced by 
"materials."
However, I'm not sold yet on his further proposal that the "general 
cataloging" vs "cataloging of rare materials" opposition be reworded to 
emphasize "currency." The first note on the objectives page points out that 
"rarity in a literal sense may or not be a feature" of materials cataloged 
using DCRM(B)-I think the same is true of age/chronology. Not all materials 
in special collections are old (non-current); artifactuality may matter 
more than age, and artifactuality can (and is) ascribed to certain 
relatively new materials as well. I think the rare/special vs general 
opposition, though vague, remains more accurate than a rare vs current 
opposition.

Glossary

--Perfect copy/Imperfect copy
The current definition of "imperfect copy" should be more explicit about 
whether imperfections occur before or after leaving the printer, or both ? 
whatever the outcome of the DCRM(L) debate on this question decides.

--Suggested added glossary entries
The following terms all appear in the text of the DCRM(B) rules, but are as 
yet neither in the draft DCRM(B) glossary nor the AACR2 glossary. (They all 
seem at least as relevant as other entries like "wrapper," "docket title" 
and "fingerprint")
	
	Signatures
	Collation
	Gatherings
	Chronogram

Since the glossary is quite short, perhaps providing a reference to a 
fuller rare materials glossary, such as Carter's ABC for Book Collectors, 
would be helpful.

7B14

I recommend adding to 7B14 a brief summary of the rules around whether or 
not to insert a comma between the name of a cited source and the location 
within the source. As currently written, users are given examples without 
any explanation of internal punctuation rules. Instead, users are referred 
to Standard Citation Forms (where they will find the specific citation 
forms) without any mention of the fact that they must there also consult 
the rules about internal punctuation. That this is confusing is confirmed 
by the fact that the examples given in the MARC documentation for the 510 
field all have internal commas, some mistakenly.

I believe this info could be efficiently provided here by splitting up the 
short list of examples into two groups (examples with and without internal 
punctuation) and prefacing one by saying "Add no internal punctuation when 
?" and the other by saying "Add a comma-space between the cited source's 
name and enumeration when ?"

If this considered too unwieldy, then as a last resort I think the sentence 
beginning "Use the form recommended by Standard Citation Forms" should be 
changed to "Use the citation form and internal punctuation rules 
recommended by ..."


Appendix G

The opening chart on Appendix G helpfully provides some of the most common 
early letter forms and symbols-I found the earlier version of this info in 
DCRB helpful when first learning to write "Signatures" notes. But the 
incunables I was cataloging often featured heavy use of medieval latin 
abbreviations in their title statements, however, and I was at a loss where 
to look after DCRB. I eventually discovered Cappelli's essential guide The 
Elements of Abbreviation in Medieval Latin Paleography. I strongly 
recommend that Appendix G include a reference to this Cappelli work-even 
though it's out of print, it's indispensable.