[DCRM-L] DCRB Core

[Robert Maxwell]

Since we're discussing how people use core, the only reason I sometimes
code a DCRB record core is if I do not want to supply a call number,
i.e., if the record is for a pamphlet or broadside and we're just going
to put it in an accession number arrangement here. Everything else about
the record is full, but the availability of DCRB Core allows me to
contribute the record as a PCC Bibco record without adding a call
number. I don't do this very often (if the call number is very simple to
construct I'll often add one anyway even though we're not going to use
it at BYU and then I code the record as PCC full). So when I use core
I'm not particularly thinking of how I might pare down the record; it
just allows me to contribute a record without including one of the
required fields for book core (the call number).
 
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-bounces at lib.byu.edu
[mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
	Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 3:10 PM
	To: DCRM Revision Group List
	Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] DCRB Core
	
	
	Thanks, Elaine. It was in the back of my mind that most of the
DCRB and DCRM(B) notes are optional, as you say, so the distinction
between full and core may be hard if not impossible to pin down. 
	 
	________________________

	Deborah J. Leslie
	Folger Library
	djleslie at folger.edu
	 

		-----Original Message-----
		From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
[mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Shiner, Elaine
		Sent: Wednesday, 01 March, 2006 16:56
		To: DCRM Revision Group List
		Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] DCRB Core
		
		

		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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20060301/30440f1a/attachment.htm