[DCRM-L] DCRMB vs BSR rda/dcrmb

Fri Jul 17 08:02:27 MDT 2015

I realize you were simply making an honest inquiry and aren't trying to sow the seeds of dissent, Will, so don't worry about that.

I'd also like to point out that non-BIBCO libraries can follow the BSR if they like; I think it's a good enumeration of the most important things we need to convey to our users in our bibliographic records, so as a guide to the baseline of what *should* be in a record it's a good standard. As the BSR itself points out, it is meant only as a floor--once you've included the elements required by the BSR you are free to add other elements you think enhance the record's usefulness to our users. I encourage everyone to at least familiarize yourselves with the BSR and consider whether it might not be worth adopting in your own cataloging.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
________________________________
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> on behalf of Will Evans <evans at bostonathenaeum.org>
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 7:27:04 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DCRMB vs BSR rda/dcrmb

Yes, Bob is right of course. I should have noted that we are not a BIBCO library.

Please know I’m not trying to sow seeds of dissent, but I’m just trying to determine the “right” path for an institution of our size and resources.

Best,

Will

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto: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 Robert Maxwell
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 3:10 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DCRMB vs BSR rda/dcrmb

Catalogers who had a problem with the “cumbersome statement of extent in the 300” must be misunderstanding the rare provisions of the BIBCO Standard Record (BSR) (what Will is calling the “BIBCO rda/dcrmb option”) which explicitly says:

Extent (RDA 3.4) Rare materials: apply Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (DCRM) conventions when recording extent; however, do not use abbreviations.

So if you code the record both “rda” and “dcrmb” there is no “cumbersome statement of extent.” At least no more cumbersome than DCRM itself.

We do all our rare cataloging at BYU following the BSR, and code the records both “rda” and “dcrmb”. I personally have not found it to be difficult or more time consuming or limiting in any way. I also point out that, given PCC’s requirement that all BIBCO records be cataloged using RDA now, following the BSR is the only option if you wish to do PCC cataloging of rare materials.

The BSR is available at http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/bibco/bsr-maps.html.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.

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 Will Evans
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 12:56 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DCRMB vs BSR rda/dcrmb

I’ve received about a half dozen responses, almost all of which have stated they are adhering to strict AACR2/dcrmb principles. The reasons not to switch to the BIBCO rda/dcrmb option vary. Limited resources, the potentially cumbersome statement of extent in the 300, and potentially problematical teasing out of imprint information into the various 264 fields are a few.

Someone kindly pointed to the results of a straw poll taken at the 2014 Annual meeting of the Technical Services Discussion Group, which puts the breakdown at about 50/50.

http://rbms.info/files/committees/minutes/2014/techservminutes14a.pdf

Full disclosure-I posed the question to the list out of a sense of insecurity. We’ve made the decision to stick to the unadulterated dcrmb for our rare books until DCRM2 comes long, but I was beginning to feel that we were a lone-wolf or too old school in our thinking. While we’ve given thought to the potential problems listed above, the main reason behind our decision is based on the notion that consistency of description will ultimately pay off, if and when we have to migrate our data to BIBFRAME or whatever standard ultimately emerges.

Thanks to all who responded.

Best,
Will

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto: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: Thursday, July 16, 2015 2:11 PM
To: 'DCRM Users' Group'
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DCRMB vs BSR rda/dcrmb

Will, have you had many responses? I’m of the mind that such a discussion is highly relevant to this list, rather than clogging it up.

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 Will Evans
Sent: Tuesday, 14 July 14 2015 11:31
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: [DCRM-L] DCRMB vs BSR rda/dcrmb

Does anyone have a sense as to how many of us are adhering to unadulterated dcrmb as opposed to the BIBCO Standard Record rda/dcrmb option for rare books?
Anyone know of any surveys? Empirical evidence? Hunches?
If your are of a mind to respond, perhaps contact me directly, so as not to clog up the list.
Thanks
Will

--

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Will Evans

Chief Rare Materials Catalog Librarian

Library of the Boston Athenaeum

10 1/2 Beacon Street

Boston, MA   02108

Tel:  617-227-0270 ext. 224

Fax: 617-227-5266

www.bostonathenaeum.org<http://www.bostonathenaeum.org/>

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150717/16c7f6dd/attachment-0001.html>