[DCRM-L] Summary of DCRM2 discussions at Annual

[Lapka, Francis]

Hi, all.

Please find below a summary of DCRM2 discussions at Annual (minus boring housekeeping stuff). There may be at least one or two items of interest. Don't be shy with questions or comments.

Thanks,
Francis, on behalf of the DCRM2 group




The content and form of DCRM2



A straw poll during the final meeting indicated a consensus for developing DCRM2 as a set of guidelines in the manner of LC-PCC Policy Statements or MLA Best Practices<http://www.rdatoolkit.org/musicbestpractices>. In this form, DCRM2 would offer amendments to (and elaborations on) RDA instructions without attempting to rewrite the actual text.



The group acknowledged that a PS-style approach to DCRM2 would be counter to the preference indicated in our spring poll. Justifications for the new approach include the following:



  *   Sustainability. Omitting, from the body of DCRM2, any RDA guidelines that remain substantially unchanged would give us a lighter text. This should enable us to develop and maintain DCRM2 in a more expedient manner. Given the history of lengthy development periods for DCRM guidelines, this is a significant benefit.
  *   Greater integration with RDA. Arguably, RDA is more in tune with DCRM principles than was AACR2. Now might be an apt moment to pursue a more thorough integration with the general guidelines.
  *   A moving target. It is possible that guidelines pertinent to descriptive cataloging in RDA will soon undergo a series of significant revisions (see, for example, Alan Danskin's BL presentation, noted below). If this is the case, it would profit DCRM2 to be as nimble as possible, and this quality appears more likely with a PS-style approach.
  *   The preference of the Toolkit publishers. Jamie Hennelly has indicated a willingness to implement DCRM2 (in the RDA Toolkit) in the form preferred by our community. However, ALA Publishing would be happiest with a DCRM2 implementation that follows models already established by other communities.



Within the context of a PS-style approach to DCRM2 implementation, there remain a number of possibilities for display of the guidelines. It is not a given that DCRM2 functionality would mimic the toggle-based user experience provided by the implementation of LC-PCC Policy Statements (although some of us think this functionality is sufficient). If desired, we could pursue options that might dynamically display the combined guidelines (RDA and DCRM2) in a more integrated manner. The precise manner of display can be deferred to a later stage of DCRM2 development.



The group notes, in passing, that any implementation of DCRM2 that liberally reuses RDA text cannot be made freely available (i.e. at no charge). This option is not on the table. Changes to the RDA Toolkit pricing structure<http://www.rdatoolkit.org/pricing>, implemented last year, have reduced the potential cost for institutions with few users (a single-user subscription now costs $180). In his report to CC:DA, Jamie Hennelly noted that LIS subscriptions are available at half-cost.





Discussion with Jamie Hennelly, ALA Digital Reference (publishers of the RDA Toolkit)



Discussion with Jamie focused on the logistics of DCRM2 implementation within the Toolkit.



The MLA Best Practice guidelines, currently available as a static PDF only, will be fully integrated with the Toolkit later this year. In this form, the instructions will be presented on the Resources tab, with a full set of links to and from the RDA text, as well as printing and PDF export options-precisely like the LC-PCC PS. These resources can be accessed within the Toolkit without a subscription.



Jamie pointed out that the RDA Toolkit doesn't currently offer robust support for the integration of images. Since images play an important role illustrating guidelines for various DCRM formats (cartographic, graphics ...), it's reasonable to expect that this functionality could be improved when we lobby for it.



RDA is in the process of building a new authoring tool; it should be complete in August (editors of the MLA guidelines may be among its first users). This tool will be the mechanism by which we edit DCRM2 for inclusion in the Toolkit. It will be entirely the responsibility of our community to edit and maintain our guidelines, via the authoring tool. The tool will come with a sandbox Toolkit environment in which we may preview content before it is formally published.



Needless to say, we will be obligated to keep abreast of changes to general RDA guidelines and modify our supplementary content as necessary. The JSC and RDA Toolkit revision schedules are transparent, allowing us ample opportunity to make corresponding changes (where necessary) in DCRM2.





Discussion with Eric Miller, President of Zepheira



Eric explained some of the architecture of BIBFRAME and the DCRM2 group explained more about the data needs we have for BIBFRAME.



What Eric wants from our community are the "nouns and verbs" of what is specific to our community and then to map to BIBFRAME entities. It's not desired for us to force our data needs into BIBFRAME. We should use the richness that makes sense for our community needs, then look at the current vocabulary and what doesn't fit into the BIBFRAME entities can become the basis of a rare materials BIBFRAME Profile. Passing profiles between different groups/people might not be coherent, but they can be.



Eric urged the DCRM2 group and the rare materials community to look at worldwide authority work that is being done. There are global implications for linked data. There are a lot of different controlled vocabularies that are very different, but BIBFRAME wraps them and makes them look like a cohesive authority file.



The DCRM2 group noted that we've been making extensive use of authorized access points with controlled vocabularies for years, but we place equal importance on transcription for descriptive metadata. For example, transcription of i, j, u, v, fictitious imprints, as well as serials and mutli-part monographs whose titles have changed over time are important to note.



Manuscript Resources in DCRM2



An informal vote of attendees on Monday indicated a consensus to defer treatment of manuscript resources in DCRM2 to a secondary phase of development. For manuscript material, the group has already identified many format-related reasons to differ from the rules for published resources. Manuscripts are the greatest outlier of all the formats DCRM covers. It would expedite the composition of DCRM2 to concentrate initially on the rules for published resources. It may also be that RDA will engineer some of the desired changes for us. RDA could become more compatible with the principles of manuscript cataloging by adopting revisions that eliminate or de-emphasize transcription for unpublished material (the Production Statement discussion paper submitted to CC:DA by Liz and Francis recommends just such changes).





Production Statement Discussion Paper



Liz O'Keefe and Francis Lapka presented their discussion paper<http://alcts.ala.org/ccdablog/?p=1098> concerning the practice of transcription in RDA's Production Statement. The general argument of the paper is that all elements within the Production Statement should be recorded, not transcribed, because there are few substantial user benefits to transcribed data for unpublished resources (as there are with published material). It was noted that some unpublished resources (music, most notably) bear useful self-describing data; subsequent iterations of the present proposal might look to provide better guidance about what to do in such circumstances.



Update: The discussion paper received general approval in the CC:DA meeting at Annual. With minor changes, it will be forwarded for discussion in the 2014 meeting of the JSC. The paper's authors noted that it would be useful for the JSC to discuss the present paper alongside the prospective paper to be submitted by the British Library representative (see below). The two papers share concerns, but propose different solutions.



For discussion in the JSC meeting, the Production Statement paper may also be modified to briefly note other areas of RDA that prescribe transcription for unpublished resources.





British Library Discussion Paper on Production, Publication, etc.



The DCRM2 group generally supports the ideas presented in the paper (in its preliminary form<http://dcrmrda.pbworks.com/w/file/82065551/BL_Publication_etc_presentation.pdf>), with some concerns and questions that may yet be addressed when the paper is fully fleshed and vetted.



Questions and thoughts:

  *   If we can record an imprint (a Publication Statement, say) in a transcribed element and in controlled elements, are both required?  Or is just one required, but not the other (and if so, which)?
  *   Would non-transcribed places and names have to be recorded with authorized access points?
  *   Many publishers and printers (etc.) are not established in the LC NAF. Would entities in resources such as the CERL Thesaurus or British Book Trade Index suffice for control, especially if those resources are linked-data-friendly?
  *   The great variability, and frequent incompleteness, of place information for manuscript material would make it difficult to record places in controlled form.
  *   The proposal aims to "simplify" transcribed statements. It is unclear, however, how it would treat information that is non-adjacent on the source. If, for example, a publisher's name appears on the title page, and the place of publication on the verso, could the two be recorded in a single transcription, or would the element have to be repeated?



We will discuss the proposal further when the full discussion paper appears, later in July.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20140721/04427e1a/attachment-0001.html>