[DCRM-L] Proposed response on 21.27

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Right; I understood her announcement for what it was. However, RDA
LCRI's they will presumably need to be written from scratch, which does
invite alternative considerations. 
________________________

Deborah J. Leslie
Folger Library
djleslie at folger.edu
 

	-----Original Message-----
	From: dcrm-l-admin at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-admin at lib.byu.edu]
On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
	Sent: Friday, 15 July, 2005 13:27
	To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
	Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] Proposed response on 21.27
	
	
	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/fe789f48/attachment.htm