[DCRM-L] RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee proposal

[Noble, Richard]

This is good, absolutely, whatever the problem might have been. Still, I do
feel that the dcrm(b) proscription of supplied edition statements needs to
be revisited, however difficult it may be to prescribe a set of uniform
conventions for them. That rule is the problem that is addressed by this
request. When a rule is the problem--that is, when a rule frustrates some
important purpose of the rules--then the solution really lies with those who
make the rules, and with those who, for the time being, can only sympathize
with them, given the complexity of the business.

RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-3384 : RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU


On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Ann W. Copeland <auc1 at psu.edu> wrote:

>  Glenn,
>
> The Bibliographic Services Committee of RBMS met at the ALA Midwinter
> Meetings in San Diego and discussed some of the issues raised in the recent
> webinar, "Cataloging Defensively: When to Input a New Record in the Age of
> DDR."
>
> Please find attached our proposal to protect all cataloging records that
> have been created according to descriptive cataloging rules for rare
> materials over the years (as coded in the 040 $e) from all automated
> mergers.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Ann Copeland for the RBMS Bib Standards Committee
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20110208/ba40dcd9/attachment.htm