From Dan Rettberg, RE: [DCRM-L] Introductory remarks at the DCRM( B) public hearing

[Rettberg, Dan]

Hello, Leslie--
 
Thanks much for your remarks, and thank you for the opportunity to be
involved even in a small way in this discussion.
 
Dan Rettberg
drettberg at huc.edu 

-----Original Message-----
From: Deborah J. Leslie [mailto:DJLeslie at folger.edu]
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 11:10 PM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: [DCRM-L] Introductory remarks at the DCRM(B) public hearing



 This is a copy of the remarks I made to kick off the DCRM(B) public
hearing. Stephen Skuce took excellent notes on the discussion, which will be
distributed to this list presently. --DJL

 


Introduction to the DCR(B) Public Hearing, Chicago, 26 June 2005

 

Thank you for coming to this public hearing on Descriptive Cataloging of
Rare Materials (Books), sponsored by the Bibliographic Standards Committee
of the Rare Books and Manuscripts Section. I am Deborah Leslie, chairwoman
of this committee. I would like to start out by giving a brief sketch of the
context and development of this document. 

 

History of DCRM(B)

In 1981, the Library of Congress published Bibliographic Description of Rare
Books, or BDRB, which functioned as LC's own rule interpretations for the
section of AACR 2 chapter 2 that covers early printed monographs. Ten years
later, a revision of BDRB was published, renamed Descriptive Cataloging of
Rare Books, or DCRB, the rare book cataloging rules currently in use by
North American as well as some British and European libraries. DCRB was a
collaboration between the Library of Congress and the RBMS Bibliographic
Standards Committee. Several years ago, the Bibliographic Standards
Committee, under the chairmanship of Robert Maxwell, initiated a new
revision. Although the Library of Congress as an institution has not had an
active role in this revision, they have been kept apprised of its progress
and have encouraged our efforts. Moreover, this committee has a liaison to
the Library of Congress in the person of Elizabeth Robinson, former member
of Bib Standards and the head of the Rare Book Team at LC. The LC Cataloging
and Support Office has developed a working group to review and comment on
DCRM(B), which will be published by the Library of Congress, providing they
approve the text. 

 

Context of DCRM

A note on the name DCRM(B) is in order. Very early in the revision process,
we envisioned a cluster of related guidelines for the description and access
of rare materials besides printed monographs. (Let me say here that the use
of the word "rare" is meant to convey materials receiving special treatment
by their institutions, usually because it is desirable for these materials
to be preserved in their original state, and it is believed that shelving
them in open stacks will not provide the necessary protection. We are
therefore deliberately not limiting ourselves to early or scarce materials
per se). The unifying concept is that of "Descriptive Cataloging of Rare
Materials," with a parenthetical specification of the type of material the
individual guidelines cover, following the ISBD style of designation. Even
now, DCRM(M), for rare music, and DCRM(S), for rare serials, are in
progress. Descriptive Cataloging of Ancient, Medieval, Renaissance, and
Early Modern Manuscripts, 2004, by Gregory Pass with the collaboration of
the Bibliographic Standards Committee, is included in this cluster of
related guidelines, even though its acronym of AMREMM does not follow the
pattern just described. 

 

Principles

The objectives and principles of DCRM(B) make clear, we hope, the strong
principle-based approach to the revision process. Taking advantage of recent
theoretical work provided by Elaine Svenonius as well as the Functional
Requirements for Bibliographic Records, we sought to articulate a clear
understanding of what we are trying to accomplish with special rules for
rare materials, and what we have judged to be the best ways to accomplish
it. We are also responding to growing concern about the serious barriers to
scholarly access resulting from large numbers of un- and under-cataloged
materials in our special collections units. It is perhaps natural to
correlate "rare materials" with "really long, detailed cataloging records,"
but that is not a necessary correlation. As our contribution to the endeavor
to eliminate "hidden collections," we have tried to make it abundantly clear
that perfectly legitimate DCRM(B) records may be created that are not, in
fact, lengthy, full, or employ all possible options for notes and access
points. Most notes are optional. We direct your attention especially to the
discussion contained in "Pre-cataloging decisions," as well as the
appendices on collection-level, core-level, and minimal-level DCRM(B)
records. 

 

Correction of problems 

The revision of DCRB accomplishes two primary goals. First, the use of DCRB
over ten years revealed problems with several of its provisions that needed
addressing. Two prime examples of substantive revision are 1) the silent
conversion in transcription of publication dates expressed as roman numerals
on the resource as arabic numerals in the description. This silent
conversion, although traditional, is inconsistent with and seriously
undercuts the advantages that accrue with precise and faithful transcription
of title page information, and its continuance could not be justified
without doing violence to the arguments for faithful transcription in the
first place. Therefore, DCRM(B) requires the transcription of roman numerals
in imprints as roman numerals, followed by the arabic Gregorian equivalent
in square brackets. 

 

Another substantive revision was made to the existing instruction to treat
added engraved title-pages as leaves of text instead of leaves of plates.
Thoughtful reconsideration has led us to conclude that the statement of
extent element, which already separates the count of plates from text,
should more reliably represent the physical structure of the book than it
now does because of a traditional yet seemingly arbitrary instruction: to
treat certain plates as text in order to privilege title information.
Therefore, DCRM(B) requires the cataloger to treat text as text and plate as
plate without regard for the leaf's content. 

 

Additions

The more striking differences between DCRB and DCRM(B) are the substantive
additions. Although DCRB explicitly acknowledges that it could be used to
describe material of any period, it is in fact founded on the assumption
that printed books of the hand-press era are being described. Many
catalogers have for some years expressed frustration over the lack of
guidance for machine-press books, which more and more frequently are finding
themselves in special collections. To remedy that situation, some rules were
rewritten in DCRM(B) and examples added throughout to encompass the nature
of machine-press books. 

 

The publication, distribution etc. area proved the most difficult and
delicate. AACR2 rules for recording information in this area assume modern
relationships in the publication, manufacture, and distribution functions,
with a primary role taken by the publisher and a subordinate role taken by
the printer or manufacturer. In the hand-press period, the relationships
between bookseller, publisher, and printer were more fluid and less
well-defined. It would be inappropriate to accord primacy to the "publisher"
when cataloging an early printed book. In considering how to incorporate
publication data for machine-press books, we identified two viable options.
One was to add separate rules where necessary for machine-press books, which
we eventually discarded. We gave ourselves the more difficult but, we
believe, the more coherent approach to devise a single set of rules that
would serve for all kinds of printed monographs, and do it in such a way so
that the finished description appropriately reflects the publication
relationships for item in question. You will see that rule 4A6 includes
extended on how to determine whether primacy is to be given to a publisher
in transcription, or whether the different functions are to be given equal
footing, by using the wording, layout, and typography of the resource
itself. 

 

Appendix E

We added a new appendix --Appendix E--which considers the question of
bibliographic variants, particularly in the light of when to create a new
record. DCRM(B) is explicitly assuming separate records for different
editions and issues, but combined records for different impressions and
states. However, this approach is not prescriptive, and Appendix E includes
a discussion on when a finer granularity for record-creation is warranted,
as well as guidelines on how to navigate through rules when a different
approach is selected. 

 

Appendix G

Appendix G is a substantially expanded version of DCRB's appendix B. The
table of last resort for use when the pattern of IJUV in the text cannot be
determined is still there, although the presentation was drastically
revised. In conjunction with 0H, more specific guidance on converting
uppercase to lowercase capital I or capital V, although the more specific
guidance is actually geared toward shortening the process.   This appendix
provides guidance on other common transcription difficulties faced by
21st-century catalogers. Of particular note is a table of facsimiles of
pre-modern characters, letterforms, and contractions, with their appropriate
transcriptions. 

 

Introduction of workers

I would like to just say a word about who has been actively participating in
this revision--the "we" I've been referring to so freely. All current
members and many former members of the Bibliographic Standards Committee
have worked very hard. The substance of most of the significant changes and
additions to DCRB were decided on during an invitational conference, hosted
by Beinecke Library of Yale University, during March of 2003. Besides
Bibliographic Standards Committee members, a number of other people with
particular expertise, including some who had been involved in the revision
of BDRB into DCRB, participated actively in the DCRM conference to great
benefit. The shaping of DCRM(B) drafts beta through epsilon has been in the
hands of five editors, who, besides me, are John Attig, Robert Maxwell, Joe
Springer, and Manon Théroux.

 

Open the floor 

I would like to now open the floor now for any questions or comments you
have brought with you, or which have arisen as a result of my preliminary
comments.

 

*	Ligatures. 

*	Roman dates 

*	4A6 on the primacy of publishers 

*	Transcription of copyright data 

*	Engraved title pages 

*	Pre-Cataloging decisions 

*	Note labels 

*	curved rv

 

_________________________________
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
Head of Cataloging
Folger Shakespeare Library
djleslie at folger.edu <mailto: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/20050718/c643158f/attachment.htm