[DCRM-L] AMREMM and DCRM2

[Laurence S. Creider]

Francis,
Your suggestion to wait for a later stage to integrate AMREMM makes a
great deal of sense to me, not least because we really need to know what
DCRM2 looks like first.

Thanks,
Larry
-- 
Laurence S. Creider
Head, Archives and Special Collections Dept.
University Library
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 575-646-4756
Fax: 575-646-7477
lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu

On Mon, January 6, 2014 7:21 am, Lapka, Francis wrote:
> Thanks to Aislinn and Larry for their comments. I share a preference for
> option 3 (develop new rules for AMREMM-scoped material as a subset of
> DCRM2). As Larry notes, the undertaking will require specialist expertise,
> and the resulting guidelines may include substantial divergences. It would
> probably be sensible to defer full development of this subset of DCRM2
> until a later stage.
>
> Francis
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
> Behalf Of Laurence S. Creider
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 1:11 PM
> To: DCRM Users' Group
> Cc: List, DCRM Revision Group
> Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] AMREMM and DCRM2
>
> Liz,
> I don't quite fit into any of the groups you are seeking advice from, but
> I will comment because I have an idea of what is involved in producing
> rules for medieval mss, although not so good an idea as Gregory Pass!
> The short form is that I like option 3, for reasons explained below.
>
> The options you list are:
>
> 1. developing new, unaffiliated rules based on AMREMM;
>
> I think this is a terrible idea.  When I first started working on what
> became AMREMM, it became clear to me that it needed some sort of
> sponsorship. A single institution was inadequate, and the product of an
> individual cataloger would have no authority.  In addition, the MS portion
> of RBMS often gets short shrift.  I think the section and particularly BSC
> have some responsibility here to help others who may not have highly
> trained medieval mss catalogers.
>
>> 2. developing new rules based on, and as a subset of, DCRM(MSS);
>
> This is an interesting idea, but the complexities involved in describing
> medieval mss might mean that the appendix would be larger than DCRM(MSS).
> The expertise involved in earlier manuscripts can be quite different from
> that needed for modern typescripts or correspondence.  Still, I could
> probably live with some version of this.
>
>> 3. developing new rules based on, and as a subset of,  DCRM2; or
>
> I would prefer this option for a number of reasons.  First, it would make
> the rules more easily used with the other tools used by rare materials
> catalogers.  Second, I do not know about Gregory's opinion or anyone
> else's, but I have always said that AMREMM needed to be brought into the
> DCRM fold when a second edition was made.  This would be a good time.
> Third, the DCRM2 terminology would be more RDA-compliant.  Fourth, the
> advantage that I would really look forward to is that without reference to
> MARC, it should be possible to handle analytics better and do a better job
> of treating both the physical and intellectual contents of mss,
> particularly collections.  Fifth, I would also hope that, down the road, a
> set of rules less bound to MARC and ISBD would converge more readily with
> the EAD rules, perhaps through linked data??
>
> The drawbacks to taking this approach are 1) finding trained manuscript
> catalogers willing to take on or even lead the task (Maria Oldahl?) and 2)
> the size of the document would make it bulky as a subset of DCRM2.  Again
> the appendix might become a tail wagging the dog.  The second problem is
> not really a difficulty in the online world.  Separate publication or
> subset, the manual should be tied to DCRM2.  The first could be a bit of a
> problem, as we have found in doing some of the special formats such as
> cartographic materials.
>
>> 4. retaining AMREMM as is, for use in describing pre-modern
>> manuscripts
>
> The problem with this option is that AMREMM was specifically designed for
> use with MARC.  As we move to a non-MARC world for our data, its
> compromises may become less necessary.  The advantage of tying AMREMM in
> with AACR2 was the way the description could be used with headings formed
> by AACR2 rules.  Those are no longer relevant to most catalogs, so any
> references to headings will have to become access points.
>
> I hope this helps somewhat.
>
> Larry
> --
> Laurence S. Creider
> Head, Archives and Special Collections Dept.
> University Library
> New Mexico State University
> Las Cruces, NM  88003
> Work: 575-646-4756
> Fax: 575-646-7477
> lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu
>
> On Thu, December 12, 2013 1:07 pm, Elizabeth O'Keefe wrote:
>> The charge to the DCRM(MSS) Working Group (
>> http://rbms.info/dcrm/dcrmmss/MssWG-charge-200708.pdf) includes this
>> paragraph about AMREMM:
>>
>> "The Working Group should also make recommendations for a future set
>> of rules for describing and cataloging manuscripts. Possibilities
>> include: 1) a full revision of AMREMM that incorporates rules for
>> modern manuscripts;
>> 2) a two-component DCRM module for manuscripts (one component that has
>> the same scope as the current AMREMM and a second component that picks
>> up where AMREMM leaves off and covers modern manuscripts)."
>>
>> The possible courses of action the Group is considering recommending
>> include:
>>
>> 1. developing new, unaffiliated rules based on AMREMM; 2. developing
>> new rules based on, and as a subset of, DCRM(MSS); 3. developing new
>> rules based on, and as a subset of,  DCRM2; or 4. retaining AMREMM as
>> is, for use in describing pre-modern manuscripts
>>
>> If scenarios 1, 2, or 3 are recommended, BSC may need to convene a
>> group for the revision, and not just extend or expand the charge of
>> the current editorial group, since this would provide the opportunity
>> for others in the larger RBMS community with special expertise in
>> medieval manuscripts to participate in the process.
>>
>> Before making its recommendations, the Working Group would like to
>> solicit the opinions of AMREMM users, special collections catalogers,
>> and medieval manuscript specialists concerning the future of AMREMM.
>> We look forward to hearing your thoughts on these options (or others).
>>
>> Elizabeth O'Keefe (Member, DCRM-RDA and DCRM(MSS) Working Group)
>> Director of Collection Information Systems The Morgan Library & Museum
>> 225 Madison Avenue
>> New York, NY  10016-3405
>>
>> TEL: 212 590-0380
>> FAX: 2127685680
>> NET: eokeefe at themorgan.org
>>
>> Visit CORSAIR, the Libraryððs comprehensive collections catalog:
>> http://corsair.themorgan.org
>>
>> --
>> Elizabeth O'Keefe
>> Director of Collection Information Systems The Morgan Library & Museum
>> 225 Madison Avenue
>> New York, NY  10016-3405
>>
>> TEL: 212 590-0380
>> FAX: 2127685680
>> NET: eokeefe at themorgan.org
>>
>> Visit CORSAIR, the Libraryððs comprehensive collections catalog:
>> http://corsair.themorgan.org
>>
>
>
>