[DCRM-L] Future publication of DCRMs

Thu Feb 28 11:24:05 MST 2013

Colleagues,

Deirdre Scott at LC (she is Peter's boss in the Office of Business Enterprises Consumer Products and Services Section) has confirmed that "LC does not object to "free" access to non-printed DCRM manuals which based on current inventory should be available for some time."

It looks as though LC has no objection to letting RBMS offer the manuals on its site for free, even if they are appearing on Cat Desktop for a fee.  Again, the model of DCRMB Examples seems to bear that out.

Jane

From: Carpenter, Jane [mailto:jfcarpenter at library.ucla.edu]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:10 AM
To: 'Deborah J. Leslie'; DCRM Revision Group List
Cc: bsc at rbms.info
Subject: RE: Future publication of DCRMs

I must say that I agree with Deborah about the value of having RBMS/BSC publications appear on Catalogers Desktop.  So much work, effort, expense, expertise, and time has gone into the production of these manuals that it seems desirable that they carry the LC imprimatur in some way.  I don't want to see them relegated to some home-grown webpage.  Moving everything to the RBMS site would be a huge project, hopefully RBMS would be willing to support/fund this new direction and new huge workload.   Perhaps the ideal situation is to host the publications on our website, but have them linked to Catalogers Desktop, as is currently being done with Controlled Vocabularies.

And for BSC publications available online only through Cat Desktop, LC seems willing to let us load those files on the RBMS site, as is being done with  DCRMB Examples.

Deborah, did RBMS/BSC and LC ever have any formal agreements/contracts about publication of the DCRM manuals?

I don't think we can make a snap decision to simply cancel print publication of Graphics without first consulting the RBMS Publications Committee (but have they ever  been involved with the DCRM publications?), the Executive Committee, the Web Team-

I will continue to discuss these issues with Peter, and Erin is also going to go see Peter and discuss all possible options.

Jane

From: Deborah J. Leslie [mailto:DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 8:09 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Cc: bsc at rbms.info<mailto: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/d5fe76f8/attachment-0001.html>