[DCRM-L] RBMS/BSC response to RDA Chapters 6-7

[Randal Brandt]

Following is the response of the Bibliographic Standards Committee to RDA 
Chapters 6 and 7. The response was developed and written by current BSC 
members Alex Thurman and Eduardo Tenenbaum and immediate ex-BSC member 
Larry Creider. It was approved by the BSC membership on August 3, 2007 and 
submitted to CC:DA on August 6, 2007.

Randal Brandt, Chair
RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee


Bibliographic Standards Committee Task Group Response to RDA Chapters 6-7

Overall assessment

The RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee Task Group (TG) shares the 
confusion expressed by many RDA-L contributors over how catalogers are 
intended to use chapters 6-7, given that the draft consists almost 
exclusively of optional guidelines whose specific use would have to be 
further established by national or network rule interpretations.  What 
effect will designating almost all access points as "optional" have on the 
ability of institutions to share bibliographic records through utilities? 
We are glad to see provisions for designations of roles and relationships 
but concerned that if these are merely optional and the transcription of 
statements of responsibility also becomes optional (per earlier RDA chapter 
drafts) then records will be created with access points whose relationship 
to the work in question is unknown.

The sole "required" guideline from chapter 6 is to provide an access point 
for at least one creator (6.3.1) and/or originating body (6.3.2) associated 
with the work.  Providing access to all other persons, families, and 
corporate bodies associated with a work is optional. The possibility that a 
work may not have an identifiable creator or originating body (the 
situation currently known as "title main entry") is not mentioned. 
Moreover, the guidelines for actually creating the access points (whether 
required or optional) are deferred to Part B of RDA. Similarly, the sole 
relationship between resources that chapter 7 requires recording is that 
between a manifestation and the work that it manifests (7.3.2). All other 
relationships are optional. Again, guidelines on how to name related 
resources are deferred to Part B. Forcing catalogers to flip (or click) 
back and forth between Parts  A and B in order to create access points is 
unnecessarily convoluted.

The TG presumes that the existence and placement of chapters 6-7, which 
have no direct equivalent in AACR2, derive from the JSC's intention to have 
all the FRBR user tasks (identify, select, find, acquire) covered in Part 
A. If transcribing statements of responsibility becomes optional, as 
earlier RDA chapters have suggested, then identifying the creator(s) and 
contributor(s) responsible for works, expressions, etc., must be addressed 
with access points­so access ends up being covered in both the Description 
(Part A) and Access (Part B) halves of RDA. The BSC would certainly prefer 
that transcribing statements of responsibility not become optional. With 
creator identification thus restored to the realm of Description, any 
necessary material in Chapters 6-7 could be reunited with the Part B 
guidelines for Access. (Our remaining comments will not assume this happy 
outcome but rather respond to the draft as is.)

Chapters 6 and 7 are both quite lengthy, but do not contain much direct 
instruction to catalogers on how to catalog an item in hand­so what do they 
do? Our sense is that they laboriously translate familiar bibliographic 
entities and situations into the terminology and structure of FRBR, even 
though catalogers will likely continue to create bibliographic records for 
manifestations and authority records for works and expressions for the 
foreseeable future, rather than creating distinct records for each of the 
four FRBR group 1 entities. The TG admires this ambitious and 
intellectually challenging effort and applauds its underlying intention to 
improve our organization and display of bibliographic roles and 
relationships for our users­but library users will not realize these 
benefits if RDA proves so burdensome for its own users (i.e., catalogers) 
that it fails to gain the wide acceptance enjoyed by its predecessor, AACR2.

General comments

Many of the significant issues surrounding the draft of chapters 6-7 are 
mentioned in the JSC's memo accompanying the draft, and our comments will 
try to address these issues in the same order in which they are presented 
there.
    * The JSC reminds reviewers that RDA is to be primarily a web-based 
product and that explains the apparent redundancy of many of the 
guidelines; a future "concise display" option will alleviate this 
situation. Such a disclaimer­asking that we evaluate the specific 
guidelines comprising a web-based standard using a printed standard (i.e., 
the draft)­makes commenting on RDA quite difficult. The TG recommends that 
if the JSC is primarily creating an "online tool," than the constituencies 
should be evaluating drafts that demonstrate RDA's text in the context of 
its functionality and user paths using formats such as wire frames or other 
visual representations. And if a more streamlined and readable print 
version is also planned (or is achievable by printing out a "concise 
display"), then we would appreciate the opportunity to see and respond to 
drafts in that format too.

    * The TG regrets the removal of any discussion of the "primary access 
point" from chapter 6. The thrust of chapter 6 is that an access point is 
required for at least one creator and/or originating body of a work but 
that access points for all other creators and contributors are optional. No 
explanation for this distinction is given, and such an explanation 
obviously should include a discussion of the notion of the "primary access 
point," even if the instructions for choosing it are deferred to Part B 
(although moving all of the content of ch. 6-7 to Part B is 
preferable).  Although the primary access point discussion was removed from 
the chapter, many of the remaining guidelines, such as the several 
provisions for "additional access points" in 6.1.3, still continue to imply 
the concept. In particular, the awkward footnotes to 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 
stipulating that "if there is more than one creator/originating body 
responsible for the work, only the access point ... commonly named first is 
required" could also be avoided by a simple direct discussion of the need 
for a primary access point. Such a discussion should also make clear that 
providing access points to all creators is preferable, even if not 
required. These footnotes' requirement that catalogers make reference to 
some indeterminate convention from outside the work -- its "common" name -- 
is genuinely mystifying and unsatisfactory.

    * We are grateful for the elimination of "the distinction between 
creators and collaborators" if by this it is meant that the "rule of three" 
is being retired. Being able to provide access points for as many of the 
people attributed responsibility for a work on a title page or other 
relevant source as the cataloger judges appropriate is particularly 
important for special collections cataloging. This is another reason that 
the footnotes stipulating that only one creator need be given an access 
point are disappointing (and confusing in the context of the many supplied 
examples that appropriately include multiple access points for multiple 
creators).

    * The TG is neutral about the removal of the special instructions for 
musical works and art works but the resulting effect of moving all the 
musical and art related examples into 6.3 is to make the example list seem 
extremely long and redundant.

    * We strongly regret the removal of the special instructions for 
academic disputations and their replacement by examples which are contrary 
to the provisions of cataloging codes dating from the 19th century through 
AACR2. The example in 6.3.1.1.1 treats Storr as the creator when the 
praeses Kies is most likely the actual creator. The example in 6.3.4.1.1 
treats the probable creator, Schurtzfleisch, as an "other person 
...  associated with the work." The praeses generally set the topic and the 
organization and content of the academic dissertation/disputation. There 
are still hundreds or possibly thousands of these dissertations that remain 
uncataloged, and they should be cataloged in a manner consistent with all 
those cataloged previously, in order to avoid confusion and needless 
time-consuming maintenance.

    * The TG supports the JSC's decision to retain the special instructions 
for legal works, religious works, and official communications. Many of 
these works, such as creeds and liturgies, do not fit well with either the 
creator or originating body model, and are better off handled with special 
instructions. These types of literature are sufficiently distinctive that 
the instructions are needed to avoid mistakes and thereby facilitate record 
sharing without extensive modification and correction. As virtually all 
libraries need to provide access to these sorts of materials, RDA should 
provide informed guidance rather than ignoring their distinctiveness or 
referring catalogers to specialist manuals.

    * We are very pleased at the inclusion in RDA of sections encouraging 
designations of role. The BSC website 
(<http://www.folger.edu/bsc/>http://www.folger.edu/bsc/) includes a link to 
our thesaurus of relator terms, and hopes that RDA will both mention the 
existence of this thesaurus and consider its contents while creating the 
future RDA appendix of roles. The placement of the designation of role 
guidelines at 6.2 is problematic, however, as the designation of role 
"element" can only be applied once an access point has been created, and 
all the guidelines for choosing access points appear later in the chapter. 
Perhaps a subsection about designation of role could be integrated into 
6.3, and the examples indicating roles integrated there too for increased 
visibility. We believe that designations of role are valuable both for 
modern works and special collections and should be encouraged more 
forcefully in RDA. Obviously requiring designations of role in all cases 
would be impractical, but rather than simply offering catalogers the option 
to include role information without comment, RDA should provide a few lines 
of context on when designating roles is particularly useful or important, 
such as for early printed resources. The TG notes that such special 
instructions for early printed resources appear in earlier RDA chapters but 
not in ch. 6-7, and regrets this absence.

    * The inclusion of the treatment of originating bodies at 6.3.2 is 
preferable to omitting these important guidelines, but the lack of direct 
mention of the concept of primary access point is damaging.

    * Chapter 6 from its title onward makes recurrent use of the phrase 
"persons, families, and corporate bodies," seemingly according each 
equivalent conceptual weight. The assignment of separate sections to 
creators (6.3.1) and originating bodies (6.3.2) seemed at first to us (and 
likely to other future RDA users) to incompletely mirror this three-part 
division, with persons covered by 6.3.1 and corporate bodies covered by 
6.3.2 and no separate section for "families." Looking more closely, we see 
that the term creator is intended to include persons, families, and 
corporate bodies, and the term "originating bodies" merely refers to a 
subset of roles involving corporate bodies. This situation is awkward, 
firstly because it will mislead some users into thinking all corporate body 
guidelines are to be found in the originating bodies section, and secondly 
because the responsibility of families for works is sufficiently 
complicated that it does require specific guidelines. At times the actions 
of families in being responsible for works are closer to the categories of 
corporate responsibility (i.e., "originating bodies") than to those of 
individual persons. For example, the creation of family papers fits better 
under the rules for corporate origination (particularly rationales "a" and 
"b"). Many of the constituencies replying to the Library of Congress' 
family name proposal found the corporate body model more appropriate to 
families than the personal authorship model, and this fact should be 
reflected in the rules for determining responsibility for an entry, as well 
in the formulation of access points for family names.

    * The organization of chapter 7 according to the taxonomy developed by 
Tillett and the FRBR group 1 entities is intellectually impressive but not 
yet clearly relevant to the efficient cataloging of items in hand. We wish 
to emphasize that the JSC should strive to make RDA not simply an erudite 
extension of FRBR-ology but also useful for catalogers.

    * The TG would like to see RDA's treatment of the recording and 
designation of relationships (as well as its treatment of roles) contain 
more context about the value of such information in particular situations, 
rather than simply being an undifferentiated "option."

    * The TG agrees with the recommendation of the JSC's "Examples Group 2" 
that the access point examples in chapter 6 should use the authorized form 
from the LC/NACO Authority File, and finds the cited reasons for why this 
was ruled out unconvincing. However, if RDA can't use controlled names 
(from other sources in addition to LC/NACO if such exist and are deemed 
important) including dates in the access point examples, then the 
uncontrolled names as used in the examples in the draft are preferable to 
the other five options listed in the JSC's memo.

    * A recurring frustration associated with the separation of guidelines 
and examples according to their FRBR group 1 entity level is that the 
parenthetical explanations of the particular cases include full statements 
of responsibility and thus often include creators or contributors who are 
not given access points in the accompanying example because their roles are 
different and addressed elsewhere. At the least it should be clearly stated 
somewhere that the examples should not be understood to provide sufficient 
access to all the accompanying supplied information. What would be more 
useful, particularly in the context of an online tool, are links to full 
record examples, which would show how all of the names included in a 
statement of responsibility were variously represented (or not) by access 
points.
Specific comments

6.1.1.2
             The alternative sources of information listed as points a), 
b), and c) should be clearly identified as being in order of priority.

6.1.2.1
             In 6.1.2.1a and 6.1.2.1b, it is made clear that the name of a 
person, family or corporate body associated with a resource appears in a 
record only in combination with a transcribed or otherwise explicit 
indication as to the connection between the name and the resource. In 
6.1.2.1c, however, there is no mention of required justification for a 
recorded access point. This must be clarified to avoid the possibility of 
records bearing unexplained name access points.

6.3.0.2
             re: "provide access points ... for persons, families, and 
corporate bodies associated with each of the works in the aggregate 
resource." The term aggregate resource should receive a fuller definition 
here and in a glossary. FRBR refers to anthologies, monographic series, and 
archival collections as "aggregate entities" -- does this guideline imply 
that each of the authors included in an anthology receives an access point? 
We believe that would certainly improve access to such materials, but can 
that really be the intention here when the following page contains the 
footnote to the effect that a work with multiple authors need only cite the 
first author?

6.3.1.0.3
             re: "may be considered to be a creator of the compilation if 
the selection, arrangement, editing, etc., of content for the compilation 
effectively results in the creation of a new work." This requires further 
clarification as to what does and doesn't qualify as a "new work," perhaps 
with examples. We would also appreciate a definition of "compilation" -- is 
it a collection of two or more works, three or more works, or what? Does it 
matter whether the compiled works have the same author or different 
authors? These questions will affect the rules about choice of primary 
access point as well.

6.3.1.1.1
             The plethora of examples is overwhelming. Numbering the 
examples would improve reference to individual examples by practitioners 
and scholars.

6.3.1.1.1 [6-14]
             It would be helpful to add under the sub-subheading "person, 
family, or corporate body responsible for creating a new work based on a 
previously existing work" a reference to see 7.5.1 so that catalogers will 
be able to see quickly how the creators of the source work are to be 
handled, since they are not given access points here.

6.3.3 & 6.3.4
             The phrase "persons, families, and corporate bodies" appears 
consistently in the plural form in every heading and subheading (all 
guidelines with up to 3 digits) with the exception of the subheadings for 
6.3.3 and 6.3.4­these should also be pluralized.

6.3.3.0.2
             This reference seems unnecessary.

6.3.4.1.1 [Lindemans example]
             Lindemans is identified here as the "founder, main 
contributor, editor & webmaster" of a web site. Would she not more 
appropriately be treated as a "creator" than included here as an "other 
person associated with the work"?

6.3.4.2.2
             This afterthought "Exception," "for persons, families, and 
corporate bodies who are the subject of a work, see X.X." would be more 
useful if moved to the Scope section, 6.3.4.0.3, and should there be 
fleshed out to, "for guidelines on providing access to persons ..."

6.4.1.0.3
             re: "For expressions consisting of a primary work accompanied 
by commentary, etc., illustrations, additional musical parts, etc., the 
writers of commentary, etc., illustrators, composers of additional parts, 
etc., are considered to be contributors." When a cataloging rule contains 
four uses of "etc." it is not so much providing guidance as dismissing the 
subject. If breaking down access point roles according to FRBR group 1 
level is worth doing, then it must be done more precisely than this.

6.4.1.1.1
             re: "provide an access point(s) for a contributor" Change to: 
"provide access points for contributors."

6.5
             Providing access to names associated with the manifestation, 
i.e., printers, publishers, booksellers, is especially important for early 
printed resources, yet there are no early printed resource examples given 
in 6.5.1 ("producer"), 6.5.2 ("publisher"), or 6.5.3 ("distributor"). 
Moreover these roles were at times interchangeable for early printed 
resources, so a note advising caution with such resources, preferably 
alerting users to the existence of DCRM(B), would be appreciated.

6.5.0.2
             re: "if the resource contains two or more manifestations, 
provide access points ... for persons, families, and corporate bodies 
associated with each of the manifestations in the resource." Please add an 
example of such a situation -- it is difficult to conceive.

6.6
             This guideline applying to access points for names associated 
with the item stipulates three such roles only (owner, custodian, finder) 
and does not have a guideline for "other" roles associated with the item. 
We would like to see the addition of an open-ended guideline 6.6.4 for 
"other persons, families, or corporate bodies associated with the item." 
Examples of such roles for early printed resources might include binders or 
illustrators -- these are not frequently known, but large bibliographic 
surveys of the binders of incunabula, for example, are underway now (see 
the work of Scott Husby at Princeton Univ.)

6.8.2.2.1
             If this Buddhist catechism has the status of a creed, that 
should be indicated someplace.

7.3.2.0.1c
             In this example the publisher should read "Gallimard" not 
"Callimard," per OCLC.


BSC TG members:

Laurence S. Creider, New Mexico State University
Eduardo Tenenbaum, Princeton University
Alex Thurman, Columbia University (Chair)


__________________________
Randal Brandt
Principal Cataloger
The Bancroft Library
(510) 643-2275
rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu
http://bancroft.berkeley.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20070806/538a31a3/attachment.htm