[DCRM-L] To bracket or not in cataloging manuscripts

[Deborah J. Leslie]

[http://files.pbworks.com/userimage/0bf569d45d291959849e201d272dbd4396f9b330/yes/48x48/1281384254/]
francis.lapka at yale.edu<http://dcrmsteeringgroup.pbworks.com/user/435759cc40aac331ed6861bed141f060c9b4cc31> said

at 10:20 am on Aug 19, 2013

1. The statement declares that the archival community is the "primary constituency" of DCRM(MSS). Is that really so? The guidelines bridge DACS and DCRM, but they are conceived as an adaptation of DCRM, not DACS.

2. I generally agree that, for material within the scope DCRM(Mss), user tasks are better fulfilled with devised or supplied information in data elements where DCRM normally calls for transcription.

3. If we concede that it better serves our users to devise such information, I think we still need to stiffen the requirements for specifying that the data is supplied, not transcribed. In the current draft of DCRM(Mss), the guidelines instruct us to note that information is supplied only "if considered important." I think this is inadequate when describing manuscripts within the DCRM umbrella; the record *must* declare whether an element is transcribed or supplied.

4. Whichever course we take, I think it's important to maintain consistency across resource formats. If we decide that manuscript description works better with supplied information, then we need to reevaluate whether there really are format specific reasons to prefer transcription for manuscripts in other format types.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20130907/1d117c9f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6068 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20130907/1d117c9f/attachment.png>