[DCRM-L] Review of RDA proposals: Week 2

Wed Aug 19 08:36:30 MDT 2015

Thanks to everyone who has commented so far. A reminder that comments are
due tomorrow, Thursday, August 20 so that our comments can be part of the
CC:DA discussion before their vote on Friday. And if you have any comments
after the deadline, I'll try to make sure they are heard too. Our
collective expertise really does make a difference in shaping the ALA
responses and JSC decisions on these proposals in November, so thank you
again!

6JSC/LC/32: Revision to instructions for devised titles in RDA 2.3.2.11
<http://www.rda-jsc.org/sites/all/files/6JSC-LC-32.pdf>
This proposal seeks to provide greater flexibility for devising titles
proper for manuscripts, ephemera, choreographic works, art, collections,
etc.

2.
<http://www.rda-jsc.org/sites/all/files/6JSC-BL-rep-2.pdf>
6JSC/BL rep/2 Simplification of RDA 2.7-2.10
<http://www.rda-jsc.org/sites/all/files/6JSC-BL-rep-2.pdf>
6JSC/BL rep/2/Appendix
<http://www.rda-jsc.org/sites/all/files/6JSC-BL-rep-2-Appendix-B.pdf>Simplification
of RDA 2.7-2.10. Follow up/Appendix B
<http://www.rda-jsc.org/sites/all/files/6JSC-BL-rep-2-Appendix-B.pdf>
This proposal and appendix are a follow-up to the much-discussed 6JSC/BL
rep/1 <http://rda-jsc.org/6JSC/BL%20rep/1> from last year, which proposed
significant changes to instructions for
production/publication/distribution/manufacture (PPDM) statements; among
other changes, the follow-up now treats production statements separately
(see following proposal).

3.
6JSC/BL/26: 2.7 Production statement: Changing method of recording
<http://www.rda-jsc.org/sites/all/files/6JSC-BL-26.pdf>
This related proposal treats production statements separately from
publication/distribution/manufacture
statements, and regards recording of production elements for unpublished
and non-self-describing resources.

4.
6JSC/CCC/18/rev Recording numbering for a series (2.12.9.3)
<http://www.rda-jsc.org/sites/all/files/6JSC-CCC-18-rev.pdf>
This proposal recommends a change from transcription to recording numbering
for series, so as to be more consistent with numbering of serials

*Please share your comments on the DCRM-L list or send them directly to me
at matthew.haugen at columbia.edu <matthew.haugen at columbia.edu>*

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu>
wrote:

> The BL discussion papers concerning Publication (etc.) information are not
> easy to digest, but I will take a stab at summarizing some of the major
> suggestions; and I append my responses.
>
>
>
> 1. Add entities for Place and Timespan, which may be used to record places
> and dates of publication (etc.) as related entities.
>
> -- This is logical and deserves our full support (I think). The warrant is
> apparent in our current practice (e.g., our use of the 752 field to record
> places).
>
>
>
> 2. Create an **Imprint** element to record complete (unparsed) statements
> concerning publication, distribution, or manufacture.
>
> -- I favor this suggestion. If we have a means to record places, agents,
> and dates as related entities, I don’t think we gain much by parsing the
> sub-elements of imprint statements. Recording the information in the form
> and order that it appears, unparsed, would better serve the principle of
> representation. For non-rare material, it might be sensible to record the
> place/agent/date as related entities, in addition to, or instead of, the
> Imprint transcription. In a DCRM description, we likely want to require
> both.
>
> -- I assume that if imprint information appears in more than one location
> within the resource, we would need to record more than one Imprint element.
> The paper says to record each “in the order indicated …”. I wonder if we
> should consider, as a universal convention with any transcribed element,
> *always* recording the source of the transcription (in a related data
> element). This may sound onerous, but with a well-designed cataloging
> client and a default array of sources, it could be simple.
>
>
>
> 3. Create a **Colophon** element to record complete (unparsed) statements
> concerning production (for unpublished resources).
>
> -- For the same reasons as above, this seem sensible. However the proposed
> name for the element is problematic.
>
>
>
> 4. Associate a copyright date – as data – with the Expression, not the
> Manifestation. Allow for *transcription* of copyright dates for a
> Manifestation.
>
> -- I agree with this suggestion. Might it also make sense to broaden the
> scope of copyright information to include the agents involved, so that a
> copyright transcription can include the date and/or name of the copyright
> holder?
>
>
>
> 5. Remove (deprecate) the existing **aggregate statements** for PPDM
> information. Provide generic instructions to record elements for place,
> name and date associated with the manifestation.
>
> -- This is the portion of the paper that confuses me most. I think it
> proposes to retain the sub-elements in RDA 2.7 – 2.10 (e.g., Place of
> Publication) while reordering the instructions so that all place elements –
> for publication, distribution, manufacture, and production -- are grouped
> together, and so on for names and dates. Places and names would remain
> transcribed; dates recorded.
>
> -- The change would provide **three** options for recording PPDM
> information: a) as related entities; b) as unparsed Imprint or Colophon
> transcriptions; or c) as transcribed sub-elements (parsed). I wonder if
> this is one alternative too many. While we have a ton of legacy data with
> PPDM data in the form of parsed transcriptions, I don’t see the benefit of
> providing that option going forward.
>
>
>
>
>
> I am keen to hear other thoughts. I’m going to respond to the paper on
> Production Statements in a separate thread.
>
>
>
>
>
> Francis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Matthew C. Haugen
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 11, 2015 3:04 PM
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
> *Subject:* [DCRM-L] Review of RDA proposals: Week 2
>
>
>
> Hello all,
>
> Thank you for your insightful comments on the RDA proposals so far!
> Additional comments are still encouraged through Thursday. Next week's
> batch has a lot more to digest, including four with potentially significant
> rare materials implications, so I'm posting them now to give you a head
> start. But the good news is, that's the last of them!
>
> *Your feedback is especially valuable on these four proposals by* *THURSDAY,
> AUGUST 20:*
>
> 1.
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rda-2Djsc.org_sites_all_files_6JSC-2DLC-2D32.pdf&d=AwMFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=q_SIp8JGvAd7OYu2GHKZ2ZKnuQqjD052ZRnq0YD7V8Y&s=w5vPuCiYORboIDuHQef2-u3ZbbU6GvKjoLu-KJuonh8&e=>
>
> 6JSC/LC/32: Revision to instructions for devised titles in RDA 2.3.2.11
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rda-2Djsc.org_sites_all_files_6JSC-2DLC-2D32.pdf&d=AwMFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=q_SIp8JGvAd7OYu2GHKZ2ZKnuQqjD052ZRnq0YD7V8Y&s=w5vPuCiYORboIDuHQef2-u3ZbbU6GvKjoLu-KJuonh8&e=>
>
> This proposal seeks to provide greater flexibility for devising titles
> proper for manuscripts, ephemera, choreographic works, art, collections,
> etc.
>
>
> 2.
>
> 6JSC/BL rep/2 Simplification of RDA 2.7-2.10
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rda-2Djsc.org_sites_all_files_6JSC-2DBL-2Drep-2D2.pdf&d=AwMFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=q_SIp8JGvAd7OYu2GHKZ2ZKnuQqjD052ZRnq0YD7V8Y&s=Z-mBJI5XwEPraxAWOFSjeNPIyyPrhRQAHPJ9DoblvBA&e=>
>
> 6JSC/BL rep/2/Appendix
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rda-2Djsc.org_sites_all_files_6JSC-2DBL-2Drep-2D2-2DAppendix-2DB.pdf&d=AwMFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=q_SIp8JGvAd7OYu2GHKZ2ZKnuQqjD052ZRnq0YD7V8Y&s=9LgXaGhb_6jp_WiYbqkT33UbvjHKRZ-gpjX0zqtNFnQ&e=>Simplification
> of RDA 2.7-2.10. Follow up/Appendix B
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rda-2Djsc.org_sites_all_files_6JSC-2DBL-2Drep-2D2-2DAppendix-2DB.pdf&d=AwMFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=q_SIp8JGvAd7OYu2GHKZ2ZKnuQqjD052ZRnq0YD7V8Y&s=9LgXaGhb_6jp_WiYbqkT33UbvjHKRZ-gpjX0zqtNFnQ&e=>
>
> This proposal and appendix are a follow-up to the much-discussed 6JSC/BL
> rep/1
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rda-2Djsc.org_6JSC_BL-2520rep_1&d=AwMFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=q_SIp8JGvAd7OYu2GHKZ2ZKnuQqjD052ZRnq0YD7V8Y&s=imjtM2blfZ9bUckePzaU3TbtFeLg67PEEpQ4wIBzVdc&e=>
> from last year, which proposed significant changes to instructions for
> production/publication/distribution/manufacture (PPDM) statements; among
> other changes, the follow-up now treats production statements separately
> (see following proposal).
>
> 3.
> 6JSC/BL/26: 2.7 Production statement: Changing method of recording
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rda-2Djsc.org_sites_all_files_6JSC-2DBL-2D26.pdf&d=AwMFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=q_SIp8JGvAd7OYu2GHKZ2ZKnuQqjD052ZRnq0YD7V8Y&s=WSVKaPiaZfsaT4P6K6X2sH_hQhIIIqIVyP8u80mTn-8&e=>
>
> This related proposal treats production statements separately from
> publication/distribution/manufacture statements, and regards recording of
> production elements for unpublished and non-self-describing resources.
>
>
> 4.
> 6JSC/CCC/18/rev Recording numbering for a series (2.12.9.3)
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rda-2Djsc.org_sites_all_files_6JSC-2DCCC-2D18-2Drev.pdf&d=AwMFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=q_SIp8JGvAd7OYu2GHKZ2ZKnuQqjD052ZRnq0YD7V8Y&s=QgdIjKvmQQDLPkxQxoppI39AOUv3xCPb3qrx34gN1HU&e=>
>
> This proposal recommends a change from transcription to recording
> numbering for series, so as to be more consistent with numbering of serials
>
>
>
> *Please share your comments on the DCRM-L list or send them directly to me
> at matthew.haugen at columbia.edu <matthew.haugen at columbia.edu>*
>
> The remaining proposals to be considered by CC:DA over the next few weeks
> seem to be out of scope for DCRM, so I won't be nagging the list any
> further, but I'm still happy to post any comments to the CC:DA blog on your
> behalf. You can access all of the current proposals here:
> http://rda-jsc.org/newjscdocs
>
> Thanks again!
>
> Matt
>
>
> --
>
> --
> Matthew C. Haugen
> Rare Book Cataloger
> 102 Butler Library
> Columbia University Libraries
> E-mail: matthew.haugen at columbia.edu
> Phone: 212-851-2451
>
>

-- 

-- 
Matthew C. Haugen
Rare Book Cataloger
102 Butler Library
Columbia University Libraries
E-mail: matthew.haugen at columbia.edu
Phone: 212-851-2451
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150819/61dd5cdc/attachment-0001.html>