[DCRM-L] DCRMB vs BSR rda/dcrmb

[Laurence S. Creider]

Matt's comment is an illustration of Deborah's very important comment. 
RDA is a moving target.  AACR2 was as well, but at least it was complete
when published.  Until things settle a bit, I would just as soon stay with
DCRM(B) and the other modules and have done so in the small amount of
cataloging I have done recently.  Once RDA has clarified more, then the
BSR might make sense to libraries other than BIBCO and NACO libraries.  By
then, however, one can hope that the DCRM2 should be available.  I do not
think that specialist cataloging communities will ever be free from the
need to modify existing rules to better describe the materials for their
users.

Larry
-- 
Laurence S. Creider
Head, Archives and Special Collections Dept.
University Library
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 575-646-4756
Fax: 575-646-7477
lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu

On Fri, July 17, 2015 11:15 am, Matthew Haugen wrote:
> Hi Deborah,
>
> 6JSC/BL rep/1 was discussed at the November 2014 JSC meeting. (November
> 2014 meeting minutes, section 499, page 19.
> http://www.rda-jsc.org/sites/all/files/6JSC-M-462-539.pdf
> <http://www.rda-jsc.org/sites/all/files/6JSC-M-462-539.pdf>)  (I don’t
> think they have a spring meeting).
>
> It appears they decided to separate Production (2.7) from the proposal.
> Alan Danskin was charged with a follow-up proposal on 2.8-2.10
> (Publication, Distribution, Manufacture) for the next JSC meeting in
> Edinburgh (November 2015).  Last I heard, he is still working on it.
>
> Proposals from the RDA constituencies are due to the JSC, I believe at the
> end of July (including our RBMS sponsored proposal on references/citations
> http://alcts.ala.org/ccdablog/?p=2194).
>
> CC:DA will begin reviewing these proposals from other constituencies as
> they become available, and I think the responses need to be
> completed/approved by September.
>
> During that time, I will be sure to solicit input on DCRM-L for this and
> any other proposals that have rare materials implications.  Our specialist
> input informs the CC:DA/ALA proposal responses, and helps shape the
> outcome of these proposals at the November 2015 JSC meeting.
>
> Matt
>
>
>> On Jul 17, 2015, at 12:16 PM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> At the Folger, we use standard (unadulterated) DCRM(B).  I do add/accept
>> the 33x fields—my understanding is that although they’re required in
>> RDA records, having them in non-RDA records does not violate DCRM
>> standards—and have been making small adjustments in notes, like
>> spelling out words instead of abbreviating them (e.g., “title page”
>> or “manuscript” instead of “t.p.” or “ms.”)
>>
>> I’ve thought about switching to RDA/BSR-compliant DCRM(B), especially
>> since the BSR provisions for rare materials make the RDA-compliant
>> DCRM(B) record very much like a classic DCRM(B) record. However, my work
>> with the DCRM2 Task Force has given me more insight into how unstable
>> RDA still is. For example, if Alan Danskin's proposal to separate
>> transcription from recording information for production, publication,
>> distribution, and manufacture information
>> http://rda-jsc.org/6JSC/BL%20rep/1 <http://rda-jsc.org/6JSC/BL%20rep/1>
>> is accepted, it will significantly change the way this information is
>> recorded, and has potential ramifications for all elements containing
>> transcribed data. [Matt, do you know the status of this? I couldn't find
>> outcomes for the 2015 spring  meeting on the JSC website.]
>>
>> I advise rare materials catalogers not to create RDA/DCRM records unless
>> they must (e.g., they're in an RDA-only shop), or it's simply more
>> convenient (e.g., they come to DCRM with experience in RDA). Partly for
>> pedagogical reasons—I've found that it's counter-productive to try to
>> teach someone RDA in my rare book cataloging course if they're not
>> already experienced with it; partly for practical reasons—why go
>> through the disruptions of education, training, and documentation for an
>> interim product?
>>
>> Make no mistake: I'm a big fan of RDA conceptually, but practically, RDA
>> in a MARC environment is an ungainly, partially-evolved beast.
>>
>> 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 <http://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 <mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>]
>> On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
>> Sent: Thursday, 16 July 16 2015 15:10
>> 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
>> <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 <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
>> <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 <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
>
>