[DCRM-L] DCRM2 Survey

[Lapka, Francis]

Thank you to all who have taken time to complete the survey. For those who haven't yet, please do so by Friday, March 21. We want to hear from as many as possible (one response per institution).

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/DFY2C9L

Best,
Francis Lapka



From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Sotelo, Aislinn
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 1:01 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List (dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu)
Subject: [DCRM-L] DCRM2 Survey


(Apologies for cross-posting.)

The DCRM-RDA editorial group of the RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee is revising DCRM guidelines to make them compatible with RDA rules and fundamentals (working title: DCRM2). DCRM2 will be a new text which encompasses guidelines for all rare materials formats, varying from RDA only where there is a rare materials reason to do so.

Presently, the editorial group is holding discussions with ALA Publishing (implementer of the RDA Toolkit) to start planning how DCRM2 will be delivered to catalogers. As much as possible, we'd like to make implementation decisions based on the needs of the DCRM community. To that end, we would like to survey the rare materials cataloging community so that you may indicate the preferences of your institution.

Please note: the survey requests a single response for your entire institution (i.e. one response per RDA Toolkit subscription, regardless of the number of users on the subscription). Where necessary, please discuss the survey questions with cataloging colleagues to reach a consensus response for your institution.

Please complete your survey response here:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/DFY2C9L

The survey will be open until March 21, 2014. A tabulation of results will be shared with this list shortly thereafter.

A copy of the complete text of the survey is provided below. Please don't hesitate to contact me off list if you have any questions.

Best,

Francis Lapka
Co-chair, DCRM-RDA editorial group


1. For rules for descriptive cataloging, my institution currently uses:

AACR2 or AACR2-based standards only

RDA only

AACR2/AACR2-based standards and RDA (please explain)


2. If your institution uses the RDA Toolkit, how many concurrent users are associated with your subscription?


3. For rare materials cataloging, we use or plan to use (check all that apply)

Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Books)

Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Cartographic)

Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Graphics)

Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Manuscripts)

Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Music)

Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Serials)

Descriptive Cataloging of Ancient, Medieval, Renaissance, and Early Modern Manuscripts (AMREMM)

None of the above


4. Users of DCRM in my library/institution catalog resources for:

Special Collections and/or Archives in an academic library

Special Collections and/or Archives in a public library

Small/independent Special Collections

Historical Society/Museum

Other (please specify)


For questions 5-9, please review the following DCRM2 implementation options.

Option 1. Mimic the relationship between the current suite of DCRM manuals and AACR2. This implementation would most closely resemble the model of the current DCRM manuals. The text of DCRM2 (for guidelines on the descriptive portion of a record) would be a composite of unmodified or minimally modified RDA guidelines grafted together with DCRM2 variations appropriate for cataloging rare materials. DCRM2 would be hosted within the RDA Toolkit; reciprocal links would be established between the two sets of guidelines.

Option 1a. Same as option 1, but with the DCRM2 text divided (or filter-able) into sets of format-specific instructions, e.g. only the DCRM2 rules that apply to Serials.

Option 2. Offer a print version or e-text version of DCRM2. The print version or e-book version would be made available through ALA Publishing, for a yet-to-be-determined (one-time) fee. Presumably, the fee would not cover updates to the text. For reference, the printed full text of RDA currently sells with a list price of $150; the Kindle version retails for about $95. This option could be implemented in addition to Option 1 or 1a (the text would be identical).

Option 3. Implement DCRM2 as a supplement (or set of modifications) to RDA. With this option, DCRM2 would make only minimal use of RDA text and would comprise only the guidelines varying from RDA. Such a version of DCRM2 might resemble LC-PCC Policy Statements<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp0> or the Music Library Association's Best practices for music cataloging (version 1.0<http://bcc.musiclibraryassoc.org/BCC-Historical/BCC2013/RDA_Best_Practices_for_Music_Cataloging.pdf>). If hosted in the RDA Toolkit, this version of DCRM2 could include reciprocal links with the text of RDA. If not hosted in the Toolkit (e.g., on rbms.info), hyperlinks could be provided from DCRM2 to RDA, but not from RDA to DCRM2. In either hosting scenario, the implementation would be available free of charge (subscription to the RDA Toolkit not required).


5. If DCRM2 were available only one way, we would prefer it to be:

Option 1, integrated into the RDA Toolkit with links to toggle between RDA and DCRM2 rules (Toolkit subscription required)

Option 1a, like option 1, but with the DCRM2 text divided (or filter-able) into sets of format-specific instructions

Option 2, a printed paper copy or e-text for a one-time fee

Option 3, an online supplement to RDA (no Toolkit subscription required)

Comments


6. My institution would be more likely to maintain or increase its number of concurrent users for the RDA Toolkit if DCRM2 were implemented in the manner of Option 1 or 1a.

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Comments


7. Implementation of Option 1A, offering format-specific subsets of DCRM2 guidelines in the Toolkit, would be necessary to satisfy the requirements for rare materials cataloging at my institution.

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Comments


8. My institution would be likely to purchase a printed copy of DCRM2 (option 2) even if we had access to an integrated version of DCRM2 in the RDA Toolkit (Options 1 or 1a).

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Comments


9. An implementation of DCRM2 as Option 3, resembling the Music Library Association's Best practices for music cataloging (version 1.0<http://bcc.musiclibraryassoc.org/BCC-Historical/BCC2013/RDA_Best_Practices_for_Music_Cataloging.pdf>) would satisfy the requirements for rare materials cataloging at my institution.

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Comments

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20140317/53dd285f/attachment-0001.html>