[DCRM-L] Appendix B corrections

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Thanks, Annie.

 

__________________________________________ 
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
Chair, RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee
http://www.folger.edu/bsc/index.html
Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare Library
201 East Capitol St., S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003
djleslie at folger.edu || 202.675-0369 || http://www.folger.edu 

-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Ann W. Copeland
Sent: 14 September 2006 10:29
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Appendix B corrections

 

A few additional comments on Appendix B:

B1.3. first line Congress' guidelines (make possessive)[DJL]  Added.

B1.4. We say these guidelines are not intended for traditional archives
and manuscripts and direct catalogers of those materials to DACS. Then
in B3 we discuss arrangement and description and finding aids, send
people to Roe's Arranging and Describing Archives and Manuscripts for
more guidance, and in B3.2 talk about the basic tenets of archival
practice. Does this seem contradictory to anyone? I suggest at B1.4
adding a sentence following the mention of DACS to the effect of:

However, many of the activities associated with arranging and describing
traditional archival or manuscript collections also pertain to
collections of printed materials and are referenced in these guidelines
(or something).[DJL] I like that. I'll move this suggestion over to the
editors' discussion.  

B4. I find the first sentence awkward. Could we turn it around? "Use
AACR2 and the LCRIs....[DJL]  Can you please complete your thoughts,
Annie, with suggested text. I'm not quite sure what you have in mind for
reworking the section.


240 - typo, needs "to": according to AACR2[DJL] Fixed

300 field...Dimensions. Optionally (there is nothing given as an
instruction to which there should be an option)[DJL]  You're right! I
suspect that what the "optionally" is doing is making it clear that
recording dimensions is not mandatory for collection-level records.
Perhaps we should fall back on "if considered important," which is how
we indicate elsewhere that something is not mandatory. 


5XX redundancy in last two sentences: described below / presented below.

May need to ask original authors about the next three:[DJL]  Well, let's
see. Wasn't Jain Fletcher the original author? I'm moving this one over
to the editors' too.

580 Linking entry complexity note : it seems to me that we should have a
corresponding 773 for the Margaret Mead Collection in the example. At
least in OCLC 580/7XX fields go together. 

7XX fields: added entries
Add a sentence: If a 580 Linking complexity note has been used to
describe the relationship of the collection being cataloged to a larger
collection, make an added entry 
for the larger collection using a 773. 

B5.1. .... 245 field: Indicate in subfield $n that the collection ...
Sentence is a bit problematic. We are not asking catalogers to indicate
through the $n that there are more records, rather to indicate which
record it is among others. I would suggest something that says to use
the $n (number of part/section) to indicate which part of the collection
the cataloging record addresses (among others in a sequence of multiple
records).   

Thanks, Annie




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20061009/9fe286c1/attachment.htm