[DCRM-L] Omitting lengthy parallel titles

Mon Feb 1 13:05:58 MST 2010

Hi, Erin (and all),

   I agree that it's true that instructions for omitting lengthy
parallel titles are not specifically addressed in the DCRM manuals. And
I agree with you about the reason why: parallel titles are not (by
definition, since they are specifically excluded as such in the
glossary) a title proper. For that reason, they are not included in the
rules for title proper. Instead, they are "something mentioned in
between 'title proper' and 'other title information'"--or, A Thing Unto
Itself. 

   I have been vaguely worried about this as I have been going through
our DCRM(M) editing, but now you've really got me thinking. It seems to
me that where this got kind of "off track" was when DCRB (possibly
earlier, but I don't have BDRB close at hand) did not include a "levels
of description" chart similar to that found in AACR2 at the beginning
(the omission from DCRB made sense, since I believe the rationale was
that rare book cataloging would always be done at the most detailed
level).  Unfortunately, the issue of parallel titles is really only
addressed in AACR2 in the "levels of description" hierarchies (1.0D),
then brought up again when detailed further in 1.1D, giving guidance
that referred back to the levels. Compounding the present issue: all
these hierarchies really address is "how many" of these titles to
include, not "how much" of them, so abbreviation was not even a part of
the picture.  (Many music catalogers I know say that drafters of basic
cataloging rules for "recent & current material" [as I call it]--from
LC's rules through AACR2--were not even considering the more complicated
presentations of multiple-language titles found in some materials. [You
can get just a small glimpse of this if you look at AACR2's 5.1D, 6.1D,
7.1D1-2 [sort of] and 12.1D; otherwise the examples given in the other
areas are completely tame-and btw, they are not even addressed in the
Early Printed Monographs portion of Ch.2].)  

   So, it seems that DCRM rules are based on a long-standing assumption
that catalogers know they should be applying the most detailed level of
description, so there should be no need to address the hierarchies of
description. I wonder, too, if it is possible that some drafters of DCRB
felt that mention of levels became doubly unnecessary when the
Appendices included instruction on how to create minimum records. This
feeling could have intensified when DCRM(B) also included "core records"
in its appendices. (I do think it's possible, but I don't know for
sure.) No matter what the thinking was about that, it seems apparent
that there was a change in thinking. But with these changes came no
re-consideration of the definition and placement of parallel title rules
(which are still defined and placed "in between").

   If we decide to change the DCRM manuals, it could resolved by
changing the definition, then placing any rules on parallel title proper
issues in with the "title proper" rules and rules for parallel other
title information issues in with "other title information" rules,
re-numbering each accordingly. However, I believe that making such a
change would probably be waaaaaaaay too big to deal with at this
juncture. Instead, perhaps we could insert added guidance to 1C that, if
parallel titles are lengthy, they can be abbreviated BUT 1) not before
the 1st five words and 2) not if each of the titles cannot also be
abbreviated at that same point (or else it's not a parallel title
anymore). Something similar could be inserted for parallel other titles
(1D6). But I do see (just in writing this down) that all this might also
end up being tricky!  

   In its 1D rules, DCRM(M) has incorporated DCRM(B) text + the slight
differences found in AACR2 Ch. 5. However, my guess is that the JTG's
"music contingent" would be pretty pleased to have parallel titles and
parallel other titles more specifically handled in DCRM(M) than they are
now. But for the present (that is, for the entire period of the first
review by MLA and RBMS), we'll be keeping the DCRM(M) draft the same
until (or if) anyone comes up with a workable solution...
--Jain

Jain Fletcher
Principal Cataloger & Head, Technical Services Division
Department of Special Collections
Young Research Library - UCLA Box 951575
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1575

v: (310) 794-4096
f: (310) 206-1864
e: jfletchr at library.ucla.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Erin Blake
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 5:54 PM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: [DCRM-L] Omitting lengthy parallel titles

Dear DCRM experts,

DCRM(B) and DCRM(S) say "If parallel titles and other title information
appearing on the title page have been omitted from the title and
statement of responsibility area (e.g., because they could not be fitted
into the body of the entry, or because they were very lengthy), they may
be given here as notes."

However, I can't find the corresponding instruction in Area 1 that says
it's okay to omit very lengthy parallel titles. There are instructions
for abridgments of the title proper, but by definition that excludes
parallel titles. 

Am I missing something, or does an instruction about abridging parallel
titles need to be added to future DCRM manuals?

Thanks,

  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 | e-mail:
eblake at folger.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20100201/94c1f204/attachment.htm 