[DCRM-L] Going from Core-Level to BIBCO Standard Record in DCRM(G)

[Deborah J. Leslie]

I'd say that the real DCRM intention was to give considerable
flexibility to what constitutes a "full" DCRM record, originating in an
attempt to head off the growing concern of library directors about their
hidden collections. In fact, some of you may remember the hurriedly
gathered group of BSC types who'd attended the LC Hidden Collections
conference in September 2003, sitting on the grass outside the Adams
Building with our sandwiches to discuss exactly this. 

 

BDRB and DCRB had this flexibility as well, but it wasn't necessarily
apparent. We tried to write it in large letters in DCRM B and S-that's
what Introduction section X is all about. I encourage my fellow
catalogers to code dcrm and EL=I as long as they've included all the
required and the required-if-applicable elements, and followed DCRM in
formulating them. Note well: in DCRM proper, most notes and headings are
optional.  

 

As for DCRM(G), perhaps you can embrace this concept of a range of
acceptable levels of cataloging depth by creating an AppendixC-like
chart, giving element-by-element floor requirements for full-level
DCRM(G) records.   

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Erin Blake
Sent: Tuesday, 30 November, 2010 15:03
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] Going from Core-Level to BIBCO Standard Record in
DCRM(G)

 

<...>
>From what I can tell, the DCRM intention is that guidance come in three
sizes: extra-small (i.e., minimal-level, using Appendix D as the floor),
small (i.e., more than minimal but less than full, using Appendix C as
the floor), and regular (full level, using the whole manual and its
requirements as the floor). 

<...>  

   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20101201/ea780db6/attachment.htm