[DCRM-L] DCRB Core

Wed Mar 1 17:33:54 MST 2006

I have to say I've always questioned, on some level, how genuinely useful 
the core standards are, in practice.

At MIT, we discussed at length, and ended up dismissing, the use of 
"regular" core for our working collections, on the grounds that sometimes 
-- perhaps even more often than not -- it can actually be more difficult 
_not_ to include things than to include them.  My colleagues and I felt 
that the practical differences between full and core records were so 
minimal that the time needed to learn and internalize such a standard would 
largely be misspent.  It dredges up the old line (attributed, by everyone 
in the world, to everyone else in the world), "I didn't have time to make 
it short."  I can't speak to the usefulness of DCRB core specifically, but 
Jain's and Bob's comments on its history have been very enlightening.

In any case, I agree that requiring the 505 seems bizarre.

But I agree with Beth and any others who insist the thesis note is 
important, even in a core record; I would argue that it belongs, if 
possible, in even the most minimal record.  Although there are fixed field 
bytes we use to code a work as a thesis, I still think giving users a 
reliable way to
1) identify theses as such via the description, even when they've been 
reproduced or republished, and
2) use keyword or dedicated-noteword ways to find such things, is very 
valuable.

Because it resides in a dedicated tag, the thesis note can easily be pulled 
into its own noteword (or other) index.  I think it's very telling that, 
far from being lumped in with 1.7B1, the dissertation note is among the 
most, if not the most, heavily "structured" note in chapter 1 of AACR2.  I 
don't know why the editors of AACR2 attached such value to it, but at MIT 
it is highly useful for identifying an important class of materials.

Perhaps I should put it this way: in _not_ identifying a work as a thesis, 
we withhold information that may be crucial to the person reading the 
surrogate.  Most things that are theses say so, in a prominent place.  If 
we don't include thesis information in a tag dedicated to that purpose, 
then presumably we put it someplace where it doesn't belong, or we simply 
leave it off the record.  How do we justify that, even in a core record?

Stephen
At 04:24 PM 3/1/2006 -0700, Robert Maxwell wrote:
>"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o = 
>"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w = 
>"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 = 
>"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">
>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
><mailto:djleslie at folger.edu>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 havent read Windys study yet, but Id like to comment about the fact that 
>a lot of records coded coreactually meet standards for full level.  Ive 
>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 hadnt planned on (because its easy, or because Im lacking in the 
>requisite self-discipline), and then I find myself wondering whether Ive 
>reached full level.  It seems easy to know when youve fulfilled the 
>requirements for core, but somehow harder to recognize when youve 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 4as 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.  Thats 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: <mailto:shiner at humnet.ucla.edu>shiner at humnet.ucla.edu
>
>Phone: 323-731-8529
>
>Fax: 323-731-8617

| Stephen Skuce  |  Rare Books Cataloging Librarian
| MIT Libraries  |  Building 14E-210B  |  617.253.0654 |  skuce at mit.edu 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20060301/c79a7fe0/attachment.htm 