[DCRM-L] DCRM2 survey results

[Lapka, Francis]

(Apologies for cross-posting)

Thank you to everyone who took time to participate in our recent survey on DCRM2 implementation. A summary of all 93 responses is attached herewith.  Your collective voice, as represented in the survey results, will inform the development of DCRM2 and our ongoing discussions with the publishers of the RDA Toolkit.

To preserve privacy, we are not sharing the free-text comments accompanying many of the survey responses. Instead, we offer selected notes below, which bring out the primary sentiments expressed in the comments sections. If anyone has a question about any detail of the survey, please don't hesitate to contact me off list.

Best,
Francis Lapka, on behalf of the DCRM2 editorial group
francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>


Question 1:  For rules for descriptive cataloging, my institution currently uses ...
-- The survey results show that we are in a period of transition. In comments, many institutions indicated use of RDA for original cataloging and use of AACR2 or RDA (depending on the copy available) for copy cataloging.

Question 2:  If your institution uses the RDA Toolkit, how many concurrent users are associated with your subscription?
-- Average: 10. Median: 5.

Question 5:  If DCRM2 were available only one way, we would prefer it to be ...
-- From comments, it appears that Option 3 (DCRM2 as a supplement, akin to LC-PCC PS or the MLA's Best practices) was confusing to a number of respondents. The survey editors offer their apologies for not explaining it more clearly.
-- The responses indicate a preference for an implementation of DCRM2 (and an integration with the Toolkit) that generally mimics the implementation of the current suite of DCRM manuals (and their integration with AACR2 via the Cataloger's Desktop). The DCRM2 editorial group will take this preference into account in our discussions with the publishers of the Toolkit.  Survey responses indicate that rare materials catalogers have a range of expectations for the form and structure of cataloging guidelines. Some would prefer starting with (and staying within) the rare materials manual exclusively. Others would prefer using the general guidelines (i.e. the text of RDA) as a starting point, toggling to rare materials guidelines only as necessary. A significant number would like to consult printed guidelines. These not need be mutually exclusive options, and the DCRM2 editorial group will endeavor to accommodate all of these preferences to the extent possible.

Question 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.
-- Comments indicate that an *increase* in concurrent Toolkit users would be unlikely for most institutions because rare materials catalogers are already accounted for in current subscriptions.

Question 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.
-- Many comments indicate that having access to format-specific subsets of DCRM2 guidelines in the Toolkit would be useful, but not strictly *necessary*.

Question 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).
-- The editorial group is mildly surprised at the high rate of interest in the availability of a printed copy. A number of institutions are presumably interested in having one printed copy per department (not per cataloger).

Question 9:  An implementation of DCRM2 as Option 3, resembling the Music Library Association's Best practices for music cataloging (version 1.0) would satisfy the requirements for rare materials cataloging at my institution.
-- A number of comments indicate that this option would minimally *satisfy* requirements but would not be the preferred outcome.




_________________________________
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/20140328/b2d828a3/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DCRM2_survey_summary.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 38708 bytes
Desc: DCRM2_survey_summary.pdf
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20140328/b2d828a3/attachment-0001.pdf>