[DCRM-L] DCRM-RDA Task Force report

[Manon Theroux]

Thanks, Bob.

Just to be clear: I wasn't suggesting the copyright date should be
transcribed as the date of publication in 264 -1 $c. I just thought
guidance for recording copyright dates in 264 -4 $c might be useful
given that DCRM only allows recording/transcribing copyright dates in
notes. Also, the whole "transcribe vs. record" issue isn't necessarily
crystal clear in the BSR itself. The chart indicates that *none* of
the date elements in the 264 field (i.e. date of production,
publication, distribution, manufacture, or copyright) are transcribed
elements and the instructions in the chart for all of these date
elements use the word "record". So, the chart makes it look like the
dates should all be treated the same way. If some of these dates (e.g.
publication) are to be transcribed and some (e.g. copyright) are to be
recorded in normalized form, having some BSC guidelines and examples
for people to refer to might be really helpful.

-Manon



On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Robert Maxwell <robert_maxwell at byu.edu> wrote:
> Just to point out, copyright isn't a transcribed element in RDA, either. I had assumed we would continue to follow DCRM(B) 4D6.1, that is, not *transcribe* a copyright date in the publication element (264 -1 $c), or for that matter in the "copyright" element, not mentioned in DCRM(B). DCRM(B) here coincides with RDA, I think-copyright information is recorded in RDA, not transcribed, and never in the date of publication element. When recording copyright the year follows 1.8, that is, in the form preferred by the agency, and then the number is preceded by either the copyright or phonogram symbol whether the symbol appears with the date or not.
>
> 4D6.2 describes pretty exactly the procedure most general RDA catalogers are following-if a book has a copyright date and it is likely that the copyright date represents the date of publication, most catalogers would supply the same date in brackets in the date of publication element (264 -1 $c), possibly with a question mark if they're not sure.
>
> Under 4D6.2 the full copyright statement is transcribed in a note. I had assumed that this would be the practice when following the RDA BSR as well, since what's in 264 -4 would not be a transcription of the copyright statement, but simply recording the information (the note isn't part of the "floor" but if the cataloger wanted to go beyond the floor for this he/she would follow 4D6.2).
>
> I think recording the copyright information in a predictable, standardized, form in 264 -4 $c is the way we should go, and then transcribe the full statement elsewhere if that is thought to be necessary.
>
> 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.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Manon Theroux
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 10:52 AM
> To: DCRM Revision Group List
> Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DCRM-RDA Task Force report
>
> We might still need guidance for:
>
> -- how to record publisher, distributor, and manufacturer statements
> in 264 fields (especially how to code the indicators).
> -- how to record copyright dates in 264 fields (e.g. for long
> copyright statements, copyright renewal statements, copyright dates
> for multi-part monographs, statements with multiple copyright dates,
> etc. - all of the things we avoided having to deal with in DCRM(B) by
> deciding not to transcribe copyright dates in the 26X).
>
> Although the BSR tells you to include these elements in the record, it
> doesn't give you guidance on how to do it. Examples would be great!
>
> Also, because the BSR technically only applies to PCC records, it
> might be useful to create some kind of general statement for
> catalogers who are not creating PCC records. Something that would
> instruct them to follow the BSR guidelines (minus the 042 pcc!) when
> creating RDA/DCRM records and would explain that the BSR only provides
> a "floor" record that can (should?) be supplemented by following other
> instructions in DCRM. For example: I think the BSR only calls for
> making a transposition note when transposing title proper and
> statement of responsibility, but DCRM calls for also providing such a
> note when other elements have been transposed in the description.
> Another thing that could be clarified is the BSR instruction to
> "Generally record date of manufacture" - it would be good to emphasize
> that the DCRM proviso ("only if it applies, or is likely to apply, to
> all copies of the edition or issue being cataloged") is still valid.
>
> -Manon
>
> --
> Manon Théroux
> Head of Technical Services
> U.S. Senate Library
> SR-B15 Russell Senate Office Building
> Washington, DC  20510-7112
> 202-224-3833 (phone)
> 202-224-0879 (fax)
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu> wrote:
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>>
>>
>> One of the charges of the TF was to give specific and immediate guidance to
>> catalogers wanting to catalog rare materials according to RDA. I am thinking
>> that the recent BSR for rare materials approved by the Bibliographic
>> Standards Committee does that. Do others agree? No need to reinvent the
>> wheel if the recent work by Bob Maxwell, Francis Lapka, and Jain Fletcher is
>> satisfactory. The link below to the ALA Connect vote contains the attached
>> proposed BSR.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://connect.ala.org/node/186329
>>
>>
>>
>> Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. | Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare
>> Library
>>
>> djleslie at folger.edu | 202.675-0369 | www.folger.edu
>>
>>