[DCRM-L] ISBD Area 0 (content form; media type) and Rare Materials cataloging

[Erin Blake]

Argh. Helena and I both linked to the previous version of the MARBI
proposal. The proposal as it now stands is at
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2009/2009-01-2.html, and will be on the
MARBI agenda on Sunday.

The proposed new fields would not replace fixed field coding in the 007
(in fact, additional 007 codes are part of the proposal, with
non-projected graphics getting the most new choices, e.g., "photograph,
type unspecified" in addition to the existing "photonegative" and
"photoprint" in order to match the RDA choices in RDA 3.4.4, "Extent of
still image"). 

"Manuscript" could still be encoded in the LDR/06 and used as a 655
genre term. The fact that it's missing from these ISBD and MARBI
proposals presumably stems from published vs. unpublished not being in
the portion of RDA they're trying to accommodate. 

   EB.

-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Margaret F Nichols
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 5:04 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List; DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] ISBD Area 0 (content form;media type) and Rare
Materials cataloging

I agree that it might be useful to put content, media, and carrier type
information in one or more separate fields (separate from the title
field), but it troubles me that neither the ISBD proposal for Area 0 nor
the MARC proposal Helena mentions allow one to distinguish between
manuscript and printed material. 

It seems unclear whether the proposed fields would replace all the fixed
fields we currently use to describe the format of an item (e.g. in the
007 field), or whether they would supplement the existing information.
I'm assuming that either way, we'd have the option of continuing to use
form/genre terms to help specify further the nature of the item.

Margaret

------------------

Margaret Nichols
Head, Special Materials Unit
Library Technical Services
110 Olin Library
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY. 14853-5301
Tel. (607) 255-3530 * Fax (607) 255-9524 * mnr1 at cornell.edu




-----Original Message-----

> Date: Fri Jan 16 18:22:46 EST 2009
> From: "Helena Zinkham" <hzin at loc.gov>
> Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] ISBD Area 0 (content form;	media type) and
Rare		Materials cataloging
> To: "DCRM Revision Group List" <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
>
> Looking at the MARC proposal for new fields (June 2008) is helpful in
thinking about the ISBD Area 0 proposal, tho the MARC is geared to RDA.
"New content designation for RDA elements: Content type, Media Type,
Carrier Type"
> http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-05-3.html 
> 
> Helena Zinkham
> Prints & Photographs Div.
> Library of Congress
> 
> >>> "Elizabeth O'Keefe" <EOKEEFE at themorgan.org> 1/16/2009 10:05 AM >>>
> I agree that it would be preferable to take the content type out of
the title (provided that the vendors implement the change quickly; it
often takes years for library system vendors to catch up with changes to
MARC). But there are problems with where to put it. 
> 
> The 655 field is used both for content (novels, fables, epics) and for
form (drawings, engravings, photographs). How to distinguish? And the
655 is used to index not only what an item is, but features that it
contains (for example, Woodcuts could mean that the item IS a woodcut,
or that it contains woodcuts as illustrations, or that Woodcuts are
material accompnaying the main item being cataloged) . I was wondering
about using the first indicator in the 655 to indicate whether the term
was primary or secondary, as is done for the the 650-- but the first
indicator for genre terms is already defined to indicate when a heading
is faceted, so that wouldn't work.
> 
> I like the idea of defining a separate field or even subfield for
specific material designation (as opposed to general material
designation). At present, we use the same field (the 300$a) for what an
item is (the SMD) 
> 
> 300 \\$a1 drawing
> 300 \\$a1 painting
> 
> and for the subunits that constitute an item (some of which are also
carriers, some are not):
> 
> 30 p.
> 3 v.
> 1 sound disc
> etc. 
> 
> If there were different fields or subfields for the SMD and for the
extent field, it would be possible to identify an item as a book or a
broadsheet or a drawing in one field, and then give the extent of the
item in the other (30 p., 1 sheet, or whatever). 
> 
> The January 2006 proposal for content and carrier terms from the
GMD/SMD Working Group proposal suggested something akin to this (it
would have required "specific carrier terms", such as book, lithograph,
sculpture, CD audio) but this dropped from later versions of RDA.
> 
> Putting the type in a separate field would also facilitate data
exchange with the museum and visual resources communities, which place
great importance on the material type. 
> 
> Elizabeth O'Keefe 
> 
> >>> Kate Moriarty <moriarks at slu.edu> 1/15/2009 7:11 PM >>>
> 
> I think I like the idea of taking the content form, etc. out of the
245 and giving it its own variable field. It can serve as a good flag to
users as to the form of the resource and is less confusing when
separated from the title and statement of responsibility.
> 
> I'm not sure how helpful the manuscript- and graphic-related
vocabularies provided by the ISBD 0 report and MARBI proposal are. As
best as I can tell, the options for graphic material is "Image: (ISBD)
or "Still image" (MARBI / RDA). For manuscript material I could only
come up with "Text" from each of the proposals. I don't see any way of
indicating that the text is, for example, a handwritten manuscript.
Would that designation be left to the form/genre terms to express?
> 
> -Kate
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Alison Bridger <aebridger at yahoo.com>
wrote:
> 
> While I was at Bancroft (and this would not have changed since the
position is still open) we used the $k for some of our single item
manuscript materials but not all mss/archival materials. Like ALS for
letters or typescript and manuscript for items with formal titles.
Although I did drop using ALS at some point as I felt that most of our
users would not really know what that meant. Can't recall what was done
with graphic materials at Bancroft but I seem to remember something was
added, possibly a $h graphics. James Eason can probably shed some light
on that ...
> 
> Alison
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Elizabeth O'Keefe <EOKEEFE at themorgan.org>
> To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu 
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 11:27:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] ISBD Area 0 (content form; media type) and Rare
Materials cataloging
> 
> 
> 
> This is a very knotty topic. Though in some ways the loss of the GMD
(if RDA outlaws it) is to be regretted, the allowable terms were often
so vague or so library-speak ("realia") as to be useless. Even "graphic"
(one of the better terms) is too vague, if your users care whether the
item is a drawing, a print, or a photograph.
> 
> Earlier drafts of RDA contemplated some sort of  arrangement that
would relate the specific material designation more closely to the more
general terms, facilitating displays like:
> 
> Image : Graphic : Drawing
> 
> But this fell by the wayside. 
> 
> I don't know how many cataloging agencies were using $h [manuscript].
Many probably preferred to follow APPM practice, and therefore included
the word manuscript in the $k; those who cared about AACR may have been
discouraged from using $h manuscript because LC does not use it.
> 
> Liz O'Keefe
> >>> "Erin Blake" <EBlake at FOLGER.edu> 1/15/2009 10:39:30 AM >>>
> 
> On behalf of the editorial team working on DCRM(Graphics), what are
other DCRM communities, especially the three M's -- Manuscripts, Music,
and Maps -- thinking about proposed ISBD Area 0
(http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/isbdrg/ISBD_Area_0_WWR.htm) and the related
MARBI proposal no. 2008-05/3
(http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-05-3.html)?
> In the words of the MARBI proposal for Media type, Carrier type, and
Content type, "These three elements are intended as replacements for the
general material designation (GMD) defined in AACR2 1.1C, which is
currently recorded in field 245 (Title statement) subfield $h (Medium)."

> Here at the Folger, 245$h [graphic] and [manuscript] are regularly
used in rare materials cataloging.  
> Thoughts?
>      EB. 
> --------------------------------------------------
> Erin C. Blake, Ph.D.  |  Curator of Art & Special Collections  |
Folger Shakespeare Library  |  201 E. Capitol St. SE  |  Washington, DC
20003-1004  |  office tel. (202) 675-0323  |  fax:  (202) 675-0328  |
eblake at folger.edu  |  www.folger.edu 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Kate S. Moriarty, MSW, MLS  |  Rare Book Catalog Librarian  |  Pius
XII Memorial Library  |  
> Saint Louis University  |  3650 Lindell Blvd . |  St. Louis, MO 63108
|  (314) 977-3098 (tel)  |  (314) 977-3108 (fax)  |  moriarks at slu.edu  |
http://libraries.slu.edu/