[DCRM-L] FW: [PCCLIST] Relationship Designator TG Report Open for Comment

[Robert Maxwell]

I think this merits a formal protest from BSC. When RDA was under development BSC asked the JSC if we would be able to continue to use relationship designators outside the RDA appendix (thinking of the MARC list and in particular the RBMS terms) and we were assured on more than one occasion that the RDA list would not be closed and we would indeed be able to use terms from outside the appendix. This unfortunately sounds like bait and switch (although I realize the PCC is not the same as the JSC). I don't think the rare community, the authors of the RBMS list, should consent to having terms we need vetted by somebody else before we're permitted to use them. And even though it is characterized as fast track, the process described in section 5 of the report is indeed a vetting process (*if approved* the JSC secretary adds proposed terms to the appendix) and there's no guarantee that our terms will be approved. We've already seen controversy about "publisher" and "printer".

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Lapka, Francis
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 9:58 AM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] FW: [PCCLIST] Relationship Designator TG Report Open for Comment

I agree, this does merit a response from the DCRM community, esp. our Controlled Vocabularies group (that is, if they aren't involved already).

The report says:

a)      In PCC records, a cataloger must use a term from a list in the RDA appendix; terms outside the list (such as RBMS terms) may be used only if the cataloger has "also submitted the term to PCC SCS for inclusion in RDA" (section 5.2 of the report).

b)      "These guidelines apply to all new PCC records, whether created under AACR2 or RDA, and to all existing records upgraded to PCC standard" (section 4 of the report).

Essentially, the use of RBMS relationship designators (those not in RDA) would be invalid in any new PCC cataloging, under the guidelines proposed by this report. Is that correct?

Is the PCC task group proposing that the limited number of terms listed in the report (section C.5) be added to the RDA Appendices, and if so, why those but not others?


Francis


_________________________________
Francis Lapka, Catalog Librarian
Yale Center for British Art, Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts
1080 Chapel Street, PO Box 208280, New Haven, CT  06520
203.432.9672    francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>




From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 2:17 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] FW: [PCCLIST] Relationship Designator TG Report Open for Comment

Innocent (i.e. uninformed) question: Is the list of terms in C.5 consciously and prescriptively limited vis-à-vis our existing vocabulary? Or do the many remaining terms await the writing of scope notes to make them acceptable under PCC guidelines?

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

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Auyong, Dorothy <dauyong at huntington.org<mailto:dauyong at huntington.org>> wrote:
Worth perusing and adding the 2 cents from the Rare Books Community I think.

Dorothy Auyong
Principal Rare Book Cataloger
Huntington Library
dauyong at huntington.org<mailto:dauyong at huntington.org>

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV<mailto:PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>] On Behalf Of Philip Schreur
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 11:48 AM
To: PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV<mailto:PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Subject: [PCCLIST] Relationship Designator TG Report Open for Comment

All,
I am extremely pleased to announce that the final report of the Relationship Designator Task Group is now available on the PCC website:
Relationship Designator TG Report
        http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/RDA%20Task%20groups%20and%20charges/PCC-Relat-Desig-TG-report.rtf

The group was chaired by Naun Chew and was asked to provide a policy statement and guidelines for providing relationship designators in PCC RDA bibliographic records. In particular, they were asked to:
1.     Prepare a policy recommendation and supporting PCC guidelines to describe when and how to provide relationship designators in bibliographic records, and for any related changes in authority records.
2.      Provide recommendations and guidance on what PCC catalogers should do when a needed term is not listed in the applicable RDA appendix.
3.     Frame the guidelines within a definition and description of the problem so that both the concept and the implementation details will be understood by the PCC and broader professional community
4.     Recommend an implementation strategy and timetable for these guidelines.
The report has made a number of excellent recommendations.  Please read the document carefully, we are very much interested in your comments.  The comment period will be open until the end of this month (Dec. 31st) and comments can be directed to SurveyMonkey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/TZ6DZX5.  All the best.

Philip

--

Philip E. Schreur

Head, Metadata Department

Chair, Program for Cooperative Cataloging

Stanford University

650-723-2454<tel:650-723-2454>

650-725-1120<tel:650-725-1120> (fax)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20121206/91348517/attachment-0001.htm>