[DCRM-L] DCRB Core

[Shiner, Elaine]

I haven't read Windy's study yet, but I'd like to comment about the fact
that a lot of records coded "core" actually meet standards for full
level.  I've experimented with using the DCRB core standard for some of
my books, with the addition of a signature statement.  When I do this, I
often start out coding for core, with the best of intentions, but end up
adding a note or two I hadn't planned on (because it's easy, or because
I'm lacking in the requisite self-discipline), and then I find myself
wondering whether I've reached full level.  It seems easy to know when
you've fulfilled the requirements for core, but somehow harder to
recognize when you've passed beyond core to full level, probably because
the requirements for full-level vary, depending on the book in hand.  I
actually find this to be a problem with using the DCRB core standard.
Maybe I just need to review the books core standards, and keep more
clearly in mind all the ways they differ from full level.  

 

Further, eliminating optional notes in the DCRB (or DCRM(B)) standard
should not technically affect whether cataloging is full-level or not,
should it?  Yet eliminating optional notes is one of the main
recommendations of the DCRB core standard.  I wonder how many rare book
catalogers may code a record "4" as a way of letting colleagues know
that options have not been taken; that is, the  record may be
technically full level, but falls far short of the treatment they would
like to give the book.  That's not what the DCRB standard is for, yet I
myself feel tempted to use it that way.

 

 

 

Elaine Shiner, Head Cataloguer

William Andrews Clark Memorial Library

 

Email: shiner at humnet.ucla.edu

Phone: 323-731-8529

Fax: 323-731-8617

 

 

________________________________

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 12:29 PM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: [DCRM-L] DCRB Core

 

I have just finished reading Windy Lundy's excellent, thorough analysis
of the use of DCRB Core in the bibliographic utilities. I highly
recommend it: Library Resources & Technical Services, v.50:1 (2006:Jan
), p. 42-57

 

DCRM(B) has taken over Appendix C on core records from DCRB; I don't
think it's been changed very much. Windy's article got me thinking about
a couple of things.

 

I wonder if the 502 dissertation note and the 505 formatted contents
should be "Mandatory if applicable"?  They are right now, but their
relative importance eludes me.

 

It sounded like many of the bibliographic records in Windy's study coded
"core" actually met standards for full level. Perhaps Windy or those who
use DCRB core can comment on this. Is there something DCRM(B) can or
should do, or the Bib Standards Committee can or should do, to promote
use of the core standard and/or make it more viable? Or have we
fulfilled our duty by making it available for those few institutions who
want to use it?

 

________________________________

Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
Head of Cataloging
Folger Shakespeare Library
201 East Capitol St., SE
Washington, DC 20003
202.675-0369
djleslie at folger.edu

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20060301/c531b160/attachment.htm