[DCRM-L] DCRM and RDA: a summary of discussions at ALA

[Lapka, Francis]

The proposal I sent to this list on June 17 was discussed at ALA, in the meeting of the DCRM(B)-RDA revision group and in the meeting of the Bibliographic Standards Committee. I'm pleased to note that improvements to the proposal were suggested (and well received)-especially regarding working methods for the new approach to DCRM. At the conclusion of discussion in the BSC meeting, a straw-poll indicated strong support for the adoption of the new approach. The outline below incorporates feedback received at ALA.

I encourage everyone to review the plan, as revised. Objections and suggestions for improvement are welcome.

Barring objection, a charge for the new DCRM editorial group will be composed in the coming weeks. Members of the Bibliographic Standards Committee will then consider the charge in an online vote (via ALA Connect).

Thanks,
Francis



1. A consolidated DCRM

·         There is a general consensus that a consolidated DCRM text is desirable.

·         It is also desirable to have the option to filter a unified text by format type.

o   The technical requirements for such functionality-on rbms.info, and perhaps within the RDA Toolkit-may be more difficult than anticipated. It would be a good idea to charge a group to work on the technical requirements well in advance of implementation of a new DCRM. This work should be undertaken in conjunction with the RBMS web editor and RBMS Publications Committee.

·         BSC should initiate a conversation with ALA publishing to clarify issues relating to the dissemination of RDA guidelines (perhaps using RDA language) as part of a freely available version of DCRM on rbms.info.

·         There is at least some support for the idea that a unified DCRM might also expand its scope to include material such as electronic resources, realia, or other previously out-of-scope formats.

·         An RDA-compatible (and consolidated) DCRM should be considered an altogether new text, rather than a revision of DCRM(B).





2. Working methods

·         The current working group charged to create a revision of DCRM(B) will be charged instead to coordinate the creation of a consolidated DCRM.

o   Membership of the group should be augmented to include representative expertise on formats in the current set of DCRM modules.

·         The initial imperative of the DCRM editorial group should be to consider the overarching purpose, scope, and general guidelines of the new DCRM. This work will include a comparison of texts corresponding roughly to DCRM(x) chapter 0 and RDA chapters 0 and 1. Much of the subsequent work will depend on the principles established in this area.

·         Subgroups to the DCRM editorial group will be charged to work on DCRM guidelines corresponding to specific sections of the RDA text. The subgroup assignments will be focused and finite.

o   Membership of the subgroups will include representatives from within the DCRM editorial group and members external to the group.

o   It will be most useful to begin with two subgroups, working on:

§  RDA 2.3-2.4 Title & Statement of Responsibility

§  RDA 2.7-2.11 Production, Publication, Distribution, Manufacture & Copyright

·         Upon completion of an assignment, the work of the subgroup will be reviewed and edited-in a timely manner-in coordination with teams representing the format types (including books). Membership of such teams may largely overlap with the membership of the existing DCRM modules, but may also include new members.

o   Work on a consolidated DCRM for all format types (from the start) will benefit from the fact that the current editorial teams for DCRM modules are (in many cases) only now finishing their work, so that the teams may consider RDA while the format-specific concerns are still fresh in their minds.

·         The DCRM editorial group should provide an initial estimate of the time required to complete various parts of the project, so that anyone interested in participating may be aware of the corresponding time commitment.





3. (Piecemeal?) dissemination

·         There remain concerns about the appropriateness of a piecemeal dissemination of the revision.

·         Those in favor of piecemeal issuance generally agree that the BSR (or CSR?) could serve as general guidance for the portions of the new DCRM text not yet completed.

·         It might generally be useful to propagate (in some sense) the completed portions of the new DCRM as soon possible in order to initiate early testing of the new guidelines.

·         The issue of dissemination will be reconsidered later, as the new DCRM takes form.







________________________________
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, June 17, 2013 4:24 PM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: [DCRM-L] DCRM(B) revision process

I am posting the following message to the BSC list and DCRM-L. I hope many of you will take time to offer your thoughts. Please post all comments to DCRM-L (so that a discussion might take place in a single location).


As we near our meetings in Minneapolis and Chicago, I would like to propose some significant changes to our approach on the DCRM(B) revision for RDA. The proposal includes a new notion of the organization of an RDA-compatible version of DCRM and an alternate approach for arriving at that end.


1.       Treat the RDA-compatible DCRM as a single unified text.

2.       Create the revised DCRM by way of editorial groups that each focus on a particular area or chapter, drafting guidelines that apply to all format types.

3.       Consider issuing the revised DCRM piecemeal, as portions are completed (asynchronously).




1. Treat the RDA-compatible DCRM as a single unified text.

One of the defining characteristics of RDA is that it integrates guidelines for varying format types (where AACR2 provided separate chapters for each). To me, it makes so much sense for DCRM to take the same approach, as a single set of guidelines, with format-specific instructions running in parallel throughout. Editorially, such a DCRM would be a single text. That is, any given guideline might apply to resources of multiple format types. Additional guidelines would be added where there are format-specific reasons to do so.  Such an approach would parallel the organization of rules in RDA.

For the benefit of the user (i.e. the cataloger), however, we could still enable a functionality that resembles the current separation of modules. That is, we might offer a DCRM interface that allows a cataloger to say "Give me just the DCRM rules concerning graphics [or any other module]"; doing so would filter out all the guidelines that don't apply to graphics.  This filtered set of rules could be applied to our online version of DCRM or to printable versions (e.g. PDF files). A DCRM that offered such functionality would be superior to RDA in this regard, since one of the challenges of RDA is the need to wade through all the rules that don't apply to the resource in hand. Since we are no longer publishing print versions of DCRM (apparently), we have the freedom to offer just such innovations, on rbms.info (and perhaps in the Toolkit too?).

To my mind, the benefits of a more unified conception of DCRM are numerous:

·         It is in the spirit of RDA, and would mimic the organization of the RDA text.

·         From an editorial perspective, it would be easier to maintain a single text rather than six texts.

·         For integration with the RDA Toolkit, it would be easier to maintain one set of links, rather than six.

·         A significant portion of DCRM guidelines overlap already (i.e., they have little-to-no variation). It doesn't make sense to maintain these parallel rules in six different places. Doing so only increases the chances of editorial errors and inconsistencies.

·         It would facilitate consistency of principles (and language) throughout the DCRM guidelines. Such consistency was one of the primary justifications for the creation of BSC's new DCRM Steering Group.

·         A unified DCRM would be more fit to nimbly adjust to changes in a base standard.  Our current base standard (RDA) is sure to evolve, and major upheavals may follow. In such an environment, it should be easier to keep pace with corresponding changes in our DCRM guidelines if those guidelines are as unified as possible.


2. Create the revised DCRM by way of editorial groups that each focus on a particular area or chapter, drafting guidelines that apply to all format types.

It would be possible to work towards a consolidated version of DCRM while still working first on a revision of DCRMB (alone). That is, we could complete the revision of DCRM(B) for RDA and then create a consolidated DCRM by appending other format-specific guidelines (where necessary) afterwards. But this wouldn't be my preferred way forward.
I think it would be most useful to tackle the DCRM for RDA revision with an integrated approach from the get-go. Which isn't to say that any one editorial group should bear the responsibility for drafting an entire unified DCRM for RDA. That would be an impossible burden. Currently, BSC editorial groups are divided by module.  I propose that the work of a revision of DCRM for RDA should still be divided among multiple groups; but rather than dividing by module (format type), we could form groups to work on particular areas (i.e. chapters, or parts of chapters, in RDA). So, for example, one group might tackle title & statement of responsibility (for all formats), while other groups work on imprint, extent, or notes (etc.). Each group might have a member to represent the specialized concerns of the various format types; and since most of the DCRM modules are complete (or nearly so), we could come to the table with many of the format-specific issues already worked out (albeit for AACR2 versions of DCRM).
I think the challenge of revising DCRM for RDA becomes much less foreboding when a given editorial group needs only to focus on a specific section of the RDA text. This benefit is especially true considering that many of us are still struggling to achieve a complete grasp of RDA, given how recently we've made the leap.
Tackling RDA by chapters (rather than by formats) would also allow us to comb through the text more methodically. By contrast, passing through the RDA text in waves by format-type would mean that the editorial group for every module would have to consider every rule in RDA to decide whether or not that rule was pertinent to their scope. That seems like wasted effort.
Adequate coordination would probably be the biggest challenge of this alternate approach; but I think it would be manageable. To some extent, BSC itself might serve as the coordinating body; or perhaps our DCRM Steering Group would chiefly serve this role.
3. Consider issuing the revised DCRM piecemeal, as portions are completed (asynchronously).

I wonder if it's completely necessary to have the entirety of DCRM (or DCRM(B), for that matter) revised before issuing it. That is, we could complete (and issue) parts of the text while continuing work on other parts. This issued-in-parts approach becomes a possibility now that we are no longer bound to printed versions of the text. The BSR provides a broad (and interim) framework for how to treat DCRM with RDA. If we issued the revision piecemeal, we could point to the BSR for the portions of the DCRM text that had yet to receive full revision (and the BSR itself would, in turn, be revised to reflect those guidelines in DCRM for which the revision was complete). A piecemeal approach would allow us to target areas of DCRM/RDA integration of most pressing concern, while leaving for later the parts of DCRM and RDA that are already mostly compatible.

Frankly, I could see how this third point might be more trouble than it's worth. It might introduce too much confusion.  I suggest it primarily to address the concern that revising all of DCRM at once might take a long time. Inevitably, the time required to produce a revised and unified DCRM would be longer than that required to revise DCRM(B) alone-but what we gain by consolidation would merit the delay.

--

Of course, I realize that all the above is contrary to the plan already endorsed by BSC and may represent an excessively radical change. But I think that our revision process is still at a sufficiently early stage that we could change gears without much wasted effort. Everything that the DCRM(B) revision group has worked on to this point (an initial rule-by-rule comparison of DCRM(B) with RDA) could be of use in this alternate approach.

I'd love to get your thoughts on all of this. If the consensus is that we should stick to the approach already charted, that would be fine with me too. But if there is general support for this alternate approach (or particular aspects of it), I'd be keen to flesh it out or amend it with your suggestions, leading up to our BSC meeting in Chicago. If we so desire, we could also discuss this approach further during the portion of the BSC agenda allotted for the discussion of the DCRM(B) revision.

Best,
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>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20130715/6c7afb81/attachment-0001.html>