[DCRM-L] Future publication of DCRMs

Thu Feb 28 06:38:49 MST 2013

Deborah said:
"Open access in itself isn't an unqualified good. The value that publication in Cataloger's Desktop adds to BSC documents in terms of integration, linking, formatting, and overall convenience is not insignificant. RBMS is in no position to come even close to duplicating that functionality should we decided to self-publish."

And Erin said:

"Does this also meant that we have to do the html coding in the Cataloger's Desktop version? Things like links to glossary entries, table of contents directory tree, etc.? I'd hate to have DCRM(G) just be a PDF inside Cataloger's Desktop, like the preliminary consolidated edition of ISBD."

Deborah and Erin raise important points. I think if RBMS does venture to publish DCRM on our own, we should strongly consider encoding our publications in a markup such as TEI or DocBook. It requires extra work, but once encoded, this markup facilitates much more robust and agile use of the text and enables features such as linking, formatting (and repurposing), indexing, tables of contents, etc. I wouldn't underestimate the ability of our own community (and our colleagues on the Publications Committee) to produce resources that are as functional as the ones we currently have. For that matter, the recently issued Examples to accompany DCRM(B) is a fine example of a publication in which the requirements of publishing in CD actually reduced the intended presentation and functionality of the publication.

I am obliged to wonder about ALA Publishing's take on this. As I understand it, links between DCRM and AACR2 will soon be transferred to the version of AACR2 included in the RDA Toolkit (instead of the Cataloger's Desktop version). Does that matter? Would ALA Publishing be less inclined to integrate versions of DCRM with AACR2 (or with RDA, once we reach that point) if DCRM is freely available outside of Cataloger's Desktop?

On the whole, I see this breakdown of the LC publishing model as a great opportunity to make our standards more accessible.

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: Deborah J. Leslie [mailto:DJLeslie at folger.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:09 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Cc: bsc at rbms.info
Subject: RE: Future publication of DCRMs

Jackie,

Thanks for your excellent points.

LC just did a 3rd printing of DCRM(B) in late 2011. I'm guessing they're still selling copies, to students in my RBS classes if nowhere else (-;
DCRM(S) is more recent, and with almost certainly less demand. It would be interesting to know the rate of sales and at what point it would benefit LC to give up the print for loss.

Open access in itself isn't an unqualified good. The value that publication in Cataloger's Desktop adds to BSC documents in terms of integration, linking, formatting, and overall convenience is not insignificant. RBMS is in no position to come even close to duplicating that functionality should we decided to self-publish.

The question then becomes what's most important. It sounds like we're mostly agreed that Cataloger's Desktop-only publication would be profoundly self-defeating. I would prefer to have LC publish our manuals on Cataloger's Desktop, with all its attendant functionality, along with the understanding that we could supply a flat electronic text file for free from our website. Seriously-is anyone going to cancel their Cataloger's Desktop subscription because they can get a pdf of DCRM(C) for free?

Inventory control: not sure how demanding of resources it is. Apparently the DCRM(B) 2nd printing had completely run out for a while (a couple of months, if I'm remembering correctly) before we knew about it. That's because our CDS contact didn't know about it. Their staff level has been so mutilated over the past several years to leave no one with the "leisure" of paying attention to such things.

I'm now reminded that as result of this OP crisis, we were going to institutionalize having the BSC chair request figures once a year from CDS. That'll be something to add to the new "BSC Manual" in development. (Audrey, are you listening?)

Best,
Deborah

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 Jackie Dooley
Sent: Wednesday, 27 February, 2013 21:13
To: DCRM-L
Subject: [DCRM-L] Future publication of DCRMs

The writing is clearly on the wall that printed DCRMs are soon to be a thing of the past, and it sounds like nobody has a problem with that. Huzzah for open access! If RBMS is the only entity involved in production, then the incredible amounts of time that you all spend can happily be added to your karma count instead of any energy being expended being frustrated that somebody else is trying to make a profit (or even just break even) from your expert volunteer labor.

A few observations and opinions:

Who should be the publisher going forward?: Does it matter whether LC is the publisher? Do the manuals lose any cache' if it's not LC? I'm guessing the answers to both are no.

Communicating up the RBMS food chain: Richard is right-the Publications Committee should be in the loop at this point. Should RBMS be the publisher? Do they care about printed versions? Would ACRL care what happens? My assumption would be that ACRL would have no interest in being the publisher if RBMS only wants to make the DCRMs available as open-source content, but it's not at all too soon for your Pubs experts, maybe even the Executive Committee, to weigh in. The cataloging standards are one of RBMS's flagship enterprises! Ceasing print and/or restricting their availability are big issues. Clearly availability via the Catalogers' Desktop alone doesn't serve the community.

DCRM(G) in print: I suggest that someone ask Peter Seligman to be more specific about exactly who/what would be affected by an 11th-hour cancellation of DCRM(G) in print. If the special collections cataloging community doesn't give a hoot about print, who does? Has there been publicity already? Are the presses standing by? Has a contract been signed that gives them the right to publish? Do they care whether they publish? Might the powers at LC be perfectly happy to have it cease to be their responsibility if they thought about it rationally?

Selling off print runs so existing titles can be available as open access: It would be good to get data from LC about how many copies they're selling of each title annually (hence what the income is), and how many copies are left in the print runs. Presumably this is public information. It's conceivable that they spend more money managing inventory than they selling copies. I'm pretty familiar with the Society of American Archivists' publication practices and can report that they sometimes have a fire sale on pubs that no longer sell very many copies annually (no idea what the cutoff is). Maybe there's ALA/ACRL practice to be cited: did they care how many copies of Paper Terms were still on hand after 30 years of selling only five/year before they let you put them online for free access? :) Is Peter a decision maker or a messenger?

Best wishes to all- Jackie

--
Jackie Dooley
Program Officer, OCLC Research
& President,
Society of American Archivists

dooleyj at oclc.org
949.492.5060 (work/home) -- Pacific Time (GMT -8)
949.295.1529 (mobile)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20130228/913c9dd7/attachment-0001.html>