[DCRM-L] Proposed response on 21.27

[Robert Maxwell]

On the question of LCRIs for RDA, Barbara Tillett backtracked at the
last CC:DA meeting, saying that people had misunderstood--what they
really meant when they said that there would be no LCRIs was that there
would no longer be any LCRIs for AACR, but that there would indeed be
some sort of LC interpretations for RDA. I was skeptical of the initial
announcement (or rumor, or whatever) that there wouldn't be any more
LCRIs; it looks as though there will be. At least according to the
latest pronouncement.
 
Bob
 

Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568 

 


________________________________

	From: dcrm-l-admin at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-admin at lib.byu.edu]
On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
	Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 8:54 AM
	To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
	Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] Proposed response on 21.27
	
	
	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/a62fd281/attachment.htm