[DCRM-L] AMREMM and DCRM2

[Laurence S. Creider]

Liz,
I don't quite fit into any of the groups you are seeking advice from, but
I will comment because I have an idea of what is involved in producing
rules for medieval mss, although not so good an idea as Gregory Pass!
The short form is that I like option 3, for reasons explained below.

The options you list are:

1. developing new, unaffiliated rules based on AMREMM;

I think this is a terrible idea.  When I first started working on what
became AMREMM, it became clear to me that it needed some sort of
sponsorship. A single institution was inadequate, and the product of an
individual cataloger would have no authority.  In addition, the MS portion
of RBMS often gets short shrift.  I think the section and particularly BSC
have some responsibility here to help others who may not have highly
trained medieval mss catalogers.

> 2. developing new rules based on, and as a subset of, DCRM(MSS);

This is an interesting idea, but the complexities involved in describing 
medieval mss might mean that the appendix would be larger than DCRM(MSS). 
The expertise involved in earlier manuscripts can be quite different from
that needed for modern typescripts or correspondence.  Still, I could
probably live with some version of this.

> 3. developing new rules based on, and as a subset of,  DCRM2; or

I would prefer this option for a number of reasons.  First, it would make
the rules more easily used with the other tools used by rare materials
catalogers.  Second, I do not know about Gregory's opinion or anyone
else's, but I have always said that AMREMM needed to be brought into the
DCRM fold when a second edition was made.  This would be a good time. 
Third, the DCRM2 terminology would be more RDA-compliant.  Fourth, the
advantage that I would really look forward to is that without reference to
MARC, it should be possible to handle analytics better and do a better job
of treating both the physical and intellectual contents of mss,
particularly collections.  Fifth, I would also hope that, down the road, a
set of rules less bound to MARC and ISBD would converge more readily with
the EAD rules, perhaps through linked data??

The drawbacks to taking this approach are 1) finding trained manuscript
catalogers willing to take on or even lead the task (Maria Oldahl?) and 2)
the size of the document would make it bulky as a subset of DCRM2.  Again
the appendix might become a tail wagging the dog.  The second problem is
not really a difficulty in the online world.  Separate publication or
subset, the manual should be tied to DCRM2.  The first could be a bit of a
problem, as we have found in doing some of the special formats such as
cartographic materials.

> 4. retaining AMREMM as is, for use in describing pre-modern manuscripts

The problem with this option is that AMREMM was specifically designed for
use with MARC.  As we move to a non-MARC world for our data, its
compromises may become less necessary.  The advantage of tying AMREMM in
with AACR2 was the way the description could be used with headings formed
by AACR2 rules.  Those are no longer relevant to most catalogs, so any
references to headings will have to become access points.

I hope this helps somewhat.

Larry
-- 
Laurence S. Creider
Head, Archives and Special Collections Dept.
University Library
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 575-646-4756
Fax: 575-646-7477
lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu

On Thu, December 12, 2013 1:07 pm, Elizabeth O'Keefe wrote:
> The charge to the DCRM(MSS) Working Group (
> http://rbms.info/dcrm/dcrmmss/MssWG-charge-200708.pdf) includes this
> paragraph about AMREMM:
>
> "The Working Group should also make recommendations for a future set of
> rules for describing and cataloging manuscripts. Possibilities include: 1)
> a full revision of AMREMM that incorporates rules for modern manuscripts;
> 2) a two-component DCRM module for manuscripts (one component that has the
> same scope as the current AMREMM and a second component that picks up
> where
> AMREMM leaves off and covers modern manuscripts)."
>
> The possible courses of action the Group is considering recommending
> include:
>
> 1. developing new, unaffiliated rules based on AMREMM;
> 2. developing new rules based on, and as a subset of, DCRM(MSS);
> 3. developing new rules based on, and as a subset of,  DCRM2; or
> 4. retaining AMREMM as is, for use in describing pre-modern manuscripts
>
> If scenarios 1, 2, or 3 are recommended, BSC may need to convene a group
> for the revision, and not just extend or expand the charge of the current
> editorial group, since this would provide the opportunity for others in
> the
> larger RBMS community with special expertise in medieval manuscripts to
> participate in the process.
>
> Before making its recommendations, the Working Group would like to solicit
> the opinions of AMREMM users, special collections catalogers, and medieval
> manuscript specialists concerning the future of AMREMM. We look forward to
> hearing your thoughts on these options (or others).
>
> Elizabeth O'Keefe (Member, DCRM-RDA and DCRM(MSS) Working Group)
> Director of Collection Information Systems
> The Morgan Library & Museum
> 225 Madison Avenue
> New York, NY  10016-3405
>
> TEL: 212 590-0380
> FAX: 2127685680
> NET: eokeefe at themorgan.org
>
> Visit CORSAIR, the Libraryððs comprehensive collections catalog:
> http://corsair.themorgan.org
>
> --
> Elizabeth O'Keefe
> Director of Collection Information Systems
> The Morgan Library & Museum
> 225 Madison Avenue
> New York, NY  10016-3405
>
> TEL: 212 590-0380
> FAX: 2127685680
> NET: eokeefe at themorgan.org
>
> Visit CORSAIR, the Libraryððs comprehensive collections catalog:
> http://corsair.themorgan.org
>