[DCRM-L] DCRM[x] records and OCLC's member record merge pilot

Fri Feb 27 13:24:40 MST 2015

Aislinn, I haven't looked at the guidelines for that pilot. I'll inquire and get back to you about it.

Thanks— Jackie

--
Jackie Dooley
Program Officer, OCLC Research

From: "dcrm-l-request at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-request at lib.byu.edu>" <dcrm-l-request at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-request at lib.byu.edu>>
Reply-To: DCRM-L <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Date: Friday, 27February, 2015 12:18 PM
To: DCRM-L <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Subject: DCRM-L Digest, Vol 108, Issue 26

Send DCRM-L mailing list submissions to
dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://listserver.lib.byu.edu/mailman/listinfo/dcrm-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
dcrm-l-request at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-request at lib.byu.edu>

You can reach the person managing the list at
dcrm-l-owner at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-owner at lib.byu.edu>

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of DCRM-L digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: DCRM-L Digest, Vol 108, Issue 22 (Sotelo, Aislinn)
   2. Re: hand coloring and new descriptions (Noble, Richard)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 19:29:20 +0000
From: "Sotelo, Aislinn" <asotelo at ucsd.edu<mailto:asotelo at ucsd.edu>>
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DCRM-L Digest, Vol 108, Issue 22
Message-ID:
<9047D73017BECA42AEEB5C21D0EA500D3AB290BE at XMAIL-MBX-BH2.AD.UCSD.EDU<mailto:9047D73017BECA42AEEB5C21D0EA500D3AB290BE at XMAIL-MBX-BH2.AD.UCSD.EDU>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Jackie,

What about the OCLC Merging Records Pilot Program where some intuitions could merge records in OCLC ourselves? I believe the training says to be very careful about dcrmx (etc.) records, but is there an actual block for this happening? I know OCLC is still analyzing the pilot. The issue of merging pre 1800, dcrb, bdrb, dcrmx, etc. should be in those conversations if it's not already.

Aislinn Catherine Sotelo

Director of Metadata Services | The Library | UC San Diego | * 858-534-6766 | * asotelo at ucsd.edu<mailto:asotelo at ucsd.edu><mailto:asotelo at ucsd.edu>

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Dooley,Jackie
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 10:03 AM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DCRM-L Digest, Vol 108, Issue 22

Yes, it's correct that OCLC doesn't deduplicate dcrm[x] records, nor dcrb, nor bdrb, nor gihc .... Same for pre-1800 imprints. -Jackie

--
Jackie Dooley
Program Officer, OCLC Research

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 17:15:40 +0000
From: "Schneider, Nina" <nschneider at humnet.ucla.edu<mailto:nschneider at humnet.ucla.edu><mailto:nschneider at humnet.ucla.edu>>
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu><mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DCRM(B) and WorldCat

Others can correct me if I've been working under false pretenses, but I'm under the impression that OCLC won't touch a record if it's coded dcrmX (X being whichever module is used: books, serials, graphics) in the 040 $e.

For those working in Connexion, I believe there is a way to search through GLIMIR clusters to see IR's (see Client Help>GLIMIR>What is in the index). As to the possibility of displaying IR's, RBMS would likely have to start a conversation with OCLC. There are likely costs involved.

+---------------
Nina M. Schneider
Chair, RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150227/31d560c8/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:17:45 -0500
From: "Noble, Richard" <richard_noble at brown.edu<mailto:richard_noble at brown.edu>>
To: "DCRM Users' Group" <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] hand coloring and new descriptions
Message-ID:
<CAO86_RpH_Z9bindOVsoyRz72Z73B2gcTocOKFbpmA4wV3p=oXA at mail.gmail.com<mailto:CAO86_RpH_Z9bindOVsoyRz72Z73B2gcTocOKFbpmA4wV3p=oXA at mail.gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

True enough--all it takes is a brush and a bit of paint to upgrade that
"penny plain".

RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
<Richard_Noble at Br <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU<mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>>own.edu>

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu<mailto:DJLeslie at folger.edu>>
wrote:

  Hmm, I disagree with myself. Even with evidence of two intentional
issues, the cataloger is unlikely to know if the hand-colored map in front
of her was done by the workshop or arranged by an owner. Which makes the
bar of evidence so high as to make the creation of two descriptions
virtually "never."

Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> |
202.675-0369 | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 | www.
folger.edu

*From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
Behalf Of *Deborah J. Leslie
*Sent:* Friday, 27 February 2015 14:13
*To:* DCRM Users' Group
*Cc:* Chet Van Duzer

*Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] hand coloring and new descriptions

Having recently attended a two-day conference on hand-colored maps and
prints, I'm fairly confident about two things. One, that publishers
sometimes issued groups of copies hand-colored and the rest uncolored, just
the way a publisher may issue ordinary and large-paper issues. And, that it
is usually impossible for the cataloger to know whether it was issued that
way unless someone or something tells them. In Jeffrey's example, the two
prices makes it clear. Otherwise, you'd have to depend on research.

One conference paper was on hand-coloring of the 1513 edition of Ptolemy's
*Geographia*. Chet Van Duzer found over 30 hand-colored copies. Of those
roughly a third displayed the same coloring scheme, while the remaining 2/3
were all different from each other. The conclusion that the publisher
issued both hand-colored and non-colored copies, and that the colored
copies were a mix of workshop and individual coloring. During the course of
two days, we saw many images of different hand-colored copies of the same
prints, and they nearly always were very different from each other. As I
recall, only in Chet's presentation was there any evidence of workshop
coloring.

I *think* I support creating two descriptions when it is known that the
publisher produced two different "consciously planned publishing units,"
but only if the cataloger is quite certain, such as when different prices
for hand-colored and uncolored copies are printed. Otherwise, assume as a
default that hand-coloring is item-specific.

Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> |
202.675-0369 | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 | www.
folger.edu

*From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
<dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>>] *On Behalf Of *JOHN LANCASTER
*Sent:* Thursday, 26 February 2015 19:37
*To:* DCRM Revision List
*Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] hand coloring and new descriptions

>From DCRM(B) (which was based on a substantial amount of scholarly
discussion, not least Tanselle?s seminal paper, ?The bibliographical
concepts of issue and state? (PBSA 69 (1975), 17-66, and the responses to
it over the years):

* Issue*

A group of published copies which constitutes a consciously planned
publishing unit, distinguishable from other groups of published copies by
one or more differences designed expressly to identify the group as a
discrete unit.

It seems pretty clear that versions of a printing designed to sell for
different prices, with different physical characteristics, constitute
different issues, whether those differences are in the illustrations, the
quality or size of paper, or the quality of binding, to name a few common
ones.  Both bookseller and purchaser would be quite clear which group of
copies they were dealing with in any given transaction, and would not
likely consider them the same.

Appendix E states:

As a default approach, the rules contained in DCRM(B) assume that a
separate bibliographic record will be created for each bibliographic
variant that represents what is referred to as an "edition" in AACR2 and
an "issue" in bibliographic scholarship.

The fact that it may be difficult to determine for a specific copy whether
that copy was issued colored or not, does not invalidate the fundamental
distinction between the types of copies as issued.

As to confusing researchers, I guess it depends on the researcher - if one
is interested in the physical characteristics, publication conditions, and
the like, it would be more confusing to have all the copies of both
versions lumped together as holdings on a single record, and to have to
sort them out by querying individual libraries (even if only by consulting
each of their on-line catalogues).

John Lancaster

On Feb 26, 2015, at 6:40 PM, Jeffrey P. Barton <jpbarton at Princeton.EDU<mailto:jpbarton at Princeton.EDU>>
wrote:

I agree with what both Allison and Ellen say.  I?ve always been guided by
the ?new setting of type? (matrix) guide in creating/not creating separate
records, and it can be confusing to a researcher to see multiple titles
listed separately, when the only real difference is hand-coloring of plates
(or lack thereof) and they?re really the same issue.

For Cotsen Library (children?s) 18th and 19th c. books, we often see books
which specifically mention the colored/plain options on the wrappers or
cover (a couple of examples below).  It seems like the publisher is thus
cueing the public that there are two variations of essentially the same
issue?

"Price 1s. plain, or 1s. 6d. coloured"
"6 d. Plain ; 1 s. Coloured"--Upper wrapper.

Jeff Barton
Cotsen Library
Princeton RBSC

***

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
<dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>>] On Behalf Of Allison Jai O'Dell
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 2:15 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] hand coloring and new descriptions

Another question that is, of course, relevant: does it serve users to
create a new description for color variations?

Maybe we can ask the research community?

Allison

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Cordes, Ellen <ellen.cordes at yale.edu<mailto:ellen.cordes at yale.edu>>
wrote:
I still think the concept that G uses is central:  was there or was there
not a change to the matrix?  If yes, then a new record. If no, than the
issue of hand-coloring is item specific whether the publisher caused it to
be hand-colored and sold them as such or a later owner commissioned the
coloring. Sometimes we can tell because it says on the print that it is
sold both colored and uncolored, but we cannot tell if a later owner had
his print colored to his liking.

Ellen

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
<dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>>] On Behalf Of Lapka, Francis
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:44 PM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: [DCRM-L] hand coloring and new descriptions

On behalf of the DCRM2 task force, I would like community thoughts on what
appears to be an inconsistency on the matter of Variations requiring a new
record (Appendix E).

The draft of DCRM(C), rule E1.2 says: ?? generally consider that a new
bibliographic record is required whenever the material distinguishes itself
from other variants by one or more of the following characteristics: ?

?         change in the presence of hand coloring, if there is evidence
that the resource was issued both with and without the hand coloring (in
case of doubt, assume the material was issued both ways)?

Contrast this to DCRM(G), rule E1.3, which says: ?Examples of differences
that do not in themselves necessarily signal the need for a new record in
the absence of other differences include: ?

?         the presence or absence of hand-coloring

?         a difference in printed colors?

The other DCRM manuals do not explicitly treat the issue of color in this
context. That said, the matter is still relevant to other formats. It is
common, for example, for publishers of color-plate books to announce (on
the item) the availability of the book in colored and uncolored versions,
at different prices. In this circumstance, it is uncommon practice (as far
as I know) to create separate records for the colored and uncolored
versions.

The default DCRM guideline is to ?assume that a separate bibliographic
record [i.e. a new Manifestation?] will be created for each bibliographic
variant that represents what is referred to as an ?edition? in AACR2 and an
?issue? in bibliographic scholarship.? It?s not a leap to argue that a
difference in coloring meets the definition of a distinct issue (from
DCRMB): ?A group of published copies which constitutes a consciously
planned publishing unit, distinguishable from other groups of published
copies by one or more differences designed expressly to identify the group
as a discrete unit.?

I would like DCRM2 to take a consistent (and principled) stand on the
matter, allowing (as DCRM does) for agencies to vary when it makes sense to
do so. What, then, would make most sense as the default approach?

I?ve already received useful comments from members of the Cartographic
team on this question, and I encourage them to chime in again here.

Thanks,
Francis

Francis Lapka  ?  Catalog Librarian
Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts
Yale Center for British Art
203.432.9672  ?  francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>

BUILDING CONSERVATION PROJECT
The Center will be closed from January 2, 2015 through February 2016 for
its Building Conservation Project. Please email the Study Room and/or the
Reference Library to request an appointment, which will be accommodated on
a limited basis Tuesday-Friday, 10 am-4 pm, contingent upon the
construction schedule.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150227/abd46c49/attachment.html>

End of DCRM-L Digest, Vol 108, Issue 26
***************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150227/29ae0e61/attachment-0001.html>