[DCRM-L] Date of Production and Date of Manufacture elements - should a priority order be provided to prefer data in the resource itself first?

Tue Dec 31 07:36:12 MST 2013

Bob,

Regarding your mention of bracketing, that is an LC/PCC practice for 2.2.4.  RDA itself says to indicate that the information was taken from outside the resource by a note or some other means (e.g., square brackets).  However, if you think that square brackets alone are not clear to users, there's nothing in the LC/PCC practice that would prohibit also providing an explanatory note.

I agree it can be confusing to the generalist cataloger which kind of archival resources would be expected to have a date and which wouldn't.  However, it would be impossible for RDA or an LC-PCC PS to list every type of resource and which ones typically contain dates and which ones don't.  As I said before, many institutions that are not archives contain material that is not typically expected to contain a date of production so re-characterizing the instruction would help with that confusion.
RDA is a generalist cataloging standard.  Having worked with AACR2, RDA, Dublin Core, APPM, DCRM(B), and DACS, my personal opinion is that for a small institution with mostly typical library materials (e.g., books, periodicals, DVD, etc.) and just a few unusual things, RDA works well.  For a large institution with a large amount of disparate resources like LC, it makes sense to catalog the materials according to the standard best suited for them-so LC uses RDA, DACS, DCRM(B), AMIM, and others.  For a specialized institution, it may make sense to use a specialist manual like DACS for description and RDA for authorized access points.

Kate

Kate James
Policy and Standards Division
Library of Congress

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 7:17 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Date of Production and Date of Manufacture elements - should a priority order be provided to prefer data in the resource itself first?

I think it is quite bizarre that 2.7.6.2 quite clearly says "take dates of production from any source", which would mean that in MARC implementation no bracketing would be needed, but then under 2.7.6.7 we are told to bracket (i.e. follow the MARC implementation of 2.2.4) under 2.7.6.7 for archival resources if the date of production is found outside the resource itself. At the very least this instruction should be labeled an exception.

I'd say it calls for bracketing dates in nearly all collections-for example,  "1785-1960, bulk 1916-1958"-I assume the instruction taken literally means, if the information isn't bracketed, that the cataloger actually found all four dates somewhere written on an item or items in the collection. Is that really what is intended (or wanted)?

On the shopping list, which as you say wouldn't be expected to have a date (I agree), wouldn't the exception under 2.2.4 kick in ("Do not indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the resource itself if the resource is of a type that does not normally carry identifying information")? So which archival things are expected to have a date (and thus the date needs to be bracketed if it isn't on the resource) and which ones are not expected to have a date (and thus the date doesn't need to be bracketed)? If sometimes we bracket date of production, sometimes we don't (based on whether the exception under 2.7.6.2 applies, and then further based on whether the exception under 2.2.4 applies)-isn't the meaning of the bracketing going to be pretty opaque even to the most sophisticated of our users?

Since it's come up as an issue where RDA needs clarification or revision, I'm for clarifying that we don't need to bracket date of production, period (which would among other things mean revising 2.7.6.2).

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
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> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of James, Kate
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 10:45 AM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Date of Production and Date of Manufacture elements - should a priority order be provided to prefer data in the resource itself first?

Francis-

A few thoughts for you to consider:

1)      All the sub-elements of publication statement are core.  However, for production statement, only one sub-element, date of production, is core.  Perhaps that is why there is a difference in sources of information for date of production vs. place of production and producer's name?  Also, the specific instruction at 2.7.6.7 about indicating a source outside the resource itself overrides the general idea that if it's "from any source" you don't need to indicate where it's from.  See point 2) below.

2)      Manuscript catalogers should pay close attention to 2.7.6.7 (Archival Resources and Collections).  The instructions here are different than those in 2.7.6.3 (Recording Date of Production).  2.7.6.7 applies to both collections and a single archival resource, which could be a manuscript cataloged individually.  My guess is that 2.7.6.3 is aimed very generally at resources like paintings and miscellaneous resources, and 2.7.6.7 is meant for unpublished resources which may be expected to contain a date.  For example, letters and wills are typical types of manuscript resources that often contain dates.  Other types of manuscript resources like a shopping list would not be expected to contain a date, and then 2.7.6.3 with the exception at 2.2.4 kicks in.

3)      The labelling of 2.7.6.7 and 2.7.6.3 is confusing, and perhaps RBMS can provide some help with that.  I used to work in a special collections library that had everything from 20th century publications to stuffed birds (taxidermy, not toys).  When we accepted an archival collection from a donor, that collection often contained many manuscript materials as well as realia.  The collection was cataloged with one bibliographic record linked to the finding aid, which had the real details about all the unusual stuff.  I'm sure many archives and special collections regularly encounter similar situations.  It may also be misleading to label 2.7.6.7 in such a way that it makes it seem like the holding institution determines how the date of production is recorded.  There are many libraries that collect manuscripts and they don't have the label "archive" anywhere in their organizational structure.

Please note these are all my personal thoughts as a former manuscripts cataloger and rare book cataloger.  They do not reflect any positions of the Policy and Standards Division at LC, and I have not asked anyone else in PSD for their opinions on this issue.  I don't get to talk manuscript cataloging with people much anymore so I kind of jump at the chance.

Kate James
Policy and Standards Division
Library of Congress

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 Lapka, Francis
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 11:50 AM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: [DCRM-L] Date of Production and Date of Manufacture elements - should a priority order be provided to prefer data in the resource itself first?

Attention manuscript catalogers

Here is a second issue submitted by Kathy Glennan for CC:DA discussion at Midwinter:
http://alcts.ala.org/ccdablog/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/JSCrepGlennan201305.pdf

The summary is sufficiently short to copy here:

Background:

Deborah Fritz has identified a problem with identifying the source of information for  Date of Production (RDA 2.7.6.2). As currently phrased, the date of production can come from any source, with no priority being given to a source in the resource. When the  source of information is "any source," catalogers do not need to indicate in any way that the data is supplied. However, RDA provides conflicting information about this recording  this element. In relation to supplied dates, RDA 1.9.2 states in part: "Indicate that the date was taken from a source outside the resource itself (see 2.2.4)." Indeed, Date of Production appears on the list of transcribed elements in RDA 2.2.4 which require identification when the element is supplied from outside the resource. Deborah has also  noted that subsequent instructions in RDA 2.7 also reference 2.2.4.

In addition, the other elements associated with the Production Statement do provide a priority order. The same situation occurs with Date of Manufacture (RDA 2.10.6.2).

Current text:

2.7.6 Date of Production
2.7.6.2 Sources of Information
Take dates of production from any source.

2.8.6 Date of Publication
2.8.6.2 Sources of Information
Take dates of publication from the following sources (in order of preference):
a) the same source as the title proper (see 2.3.2.2)
b) another source within the resource itself (see 2.2.2)
c) one of the other sources of information specified at 2.2.4.
For multipart monographs and serials, take the beginning and/or ending date of publication from the first and/or last released issue or part, or from another source.

For integrating resources, take the beginning and/or ending date of publication from the first and/or last iteration, or from another source.

Questions for discussion:

1. Should CC:DA develop a change proposal to address this situation? If so:

2. Should the proposal suggest changes for both Date of Production and Date of Manufacture?

3. Should the new language follow that for Date of Publication (RDA 2.8.6.2), or should it be simplified to just offer:
a. a source within the resource itself
b. any source

4. If based on Date of Publication, should any of the final paragraphs be omitted? Does that decision apply to both Date of Production and Date of Manufacture?

For Date of Manufacture, the current RDA guidelines (take "from any source") are indeed problematic. I think it would be logical to revise the guidelines to follow those for Date of Publication.

For Date of Production, however, the RDA guidelines are in harmony with the current draft of DCRM(Mss), which also instructs to take the information "from any source." In light of the principles of manuscript cataloging, are RDA's guidelines for Place of Production and Producer's name more problematic? For these, the preferred sources of information echo those of published (i.e. self-describing) resources.

The concluding exception at RDA 2.2.4 is important: "Do not indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the resource itself if the resource is of a type that does not normally carry identifying information (e.g., a photograph, a naturally occurring object, a collection)." Even though elements of the production statement are named as transcribed elements (in 2.2.4), most resources for which we'd record production information are also those that do not normally carry identifying information.

Your thoughts wanted (especially the Mss group).

Thanks,
Francis

(RBMS Liaison to CC:DA)

_________________________________
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>

Please note:  The Study Room is closed due to the Center's refurbishment project, and access to the collections is limited and by appointment only. Requests for materials from Prints and Drawings and Rare Books and Manuscripts should be made at least two weeks in advance by e-mailing ycba.prints at yale.edu<mailto:ycba.prints at yale.edu>. It is expected that normal services in the Study Room will resume in early January 2014.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20131231/292f0add/attachment-0001.html>