[DCRM-L] Proposed response on 21.27

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Dear colleagues, 
 
Relaxed and tanned and back from holiday in Glamorous Central
California, I come to this discussion late. The DCRM-L discussion as
well as Bob's response has been wonderfully instructive. I've cataloged
a number of these in the past, but never really knew what was going on.
Many thanks!
 
I do want to respond to the comments about including specialist rules in
DCRM. I agree that we should not have specialist rules for entry in
DCRM; however, it makes sense to me that specialist interpretations on
general rules would be appropriate. Right now we depend a fair bit on
the LCRI's to make appropriate headings for early names. With the
arrival of RDA, those RI's will disappear. More will be written, no
doubt; nevertheless, why not have DCRM provide interpretation to
situations common to early materials but not to more general
collections? Keeping in mind that DCRM(B) is an LC publication, they
will need to agree on the text, so perhaps it can be considered as
LCRI's for rare materials. Something worth thinking about, anyway. 
 
This is not to say that I think the disputation rule should not be in
RDA. It most certainly should.
 
I'd be interested in knowing if there is any more recent published work
on academic disputations. I can't do it myself, but would be grateful
for a volunteer to do a literature search.
 

_________________________________
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
Head of Cataloging
Folger Shakespeare Library
djleslie at folger.edu
http://www.folger.edu

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20050715/c0e52c6e/attachment.htm