[DCRM-L] hand coloring and new descriptions

[Matthew Haugen]

Yes, 6JSC/CILIP/4 was accepted with revisions. Final versions of accepted proposals have begun to trickle in to the JSC wesbite but this one doesn’t appear to have been posted yet.

The troublesome sentence Manon mentions was indeed removed in the original proposal. However, I responded on behalf of DCRM with the comment copied below, which sought to restore it with amendments. These suggestions were carried forward into the ALA response to 6JSC/CILIP/4 (http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-CILIP-4-ALA-response.pdf <http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-CILIP-4-ALA-response.pdf>), though it is not clear to me whether the JSC accepted those revisions.

Matthew


I’m wondering why the line in 7.17.1.1 was removed: “For instructions on recording information on hand-coloured items, see 3.21.”
On behalf of DCRM, I suggest restoring it, with some changes. While we can still point to 3.21 for item-specific coloring, some resources were issued hand-colored at the manifestation level and would be better addressed here, perhaps under 7.17.1.4 (Details of color content), even if just in an example such as:

hand coloured
Map issued with hand coloring. Color content recorded as: polychrome

Meanwhile, it’s also possible that some item-specific coloring may not have been hand applied, so the instruction pointing to 3.21 might better read:

For instructions on recording item-specific colour information, see 3.21

> On Mar 1, 2015, at 4:20 PM, Manon Theroux <manon.theroux at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Here is how I would summarize the thinking behind the instructions in the DCRM(C) draft, based on my recollection of the discussions of the DCRM(C) editorial team (the other editors are welcome to chime in as well!):
> 
> The editors wanted to follow the default instructions in DCRM(B) Appendix E, which say to create a new bib record for each ISSUE. We agreed that if a resource is known to have been issued in both colored and uncolored form (e.g. it bears text such as "Price ten dollars plain, twelve dollars coloured"), the two versions would represent separate issues. Following Appendix E, separate records would thus be in order (with different 300 $b). Other differentiating information could be added to the record as well, depending on cataloger judgment, institutional policy, etc. 
> 
> The harder question for us was what to do in cases of doubt about whether hand-colored material had been issued that way or not, both in our Appendix E and Area 5 (300 $b) instructions. Our research suggested that it was very common for cartographic material to be issued with hand-coloring, that early map-sellers often offered hand-coloring as an option at the point of sale, that the resulting color might vary somewhat from copy to copy, and that color wasn't added simply for decorative reasons but also to serve informational purposes - to delineate boundaries, show routes of travel, differentiate between land and water masses, etc. On the other hand, we also recognized that it was always possible for someone to have purchased a map uncolored and then decided after the fact to add some color to it, and the cataloger could not know if that was the case. In the end, we were swayed by how common the issuing of maps with hand-coloring seemed to be in the trade. We decided that, in cases of doubt, the cataloger should assume material with hand-coloring had been issued that way (for the purposes of area 5) and assume the material had been issued both with and without hand-coloring (for the purposes of Appendix E). It was not an easy decision though.
> 
> Because DCRM(C) is AACR2-based, we did not have to grapple with some of the RDA and WEMI issues now facing the DCRM2 group. I note that RDA chapter 7, which covers "the attributes of works and expressions that are associated with the intellectual or artistic content of a resource", includes  RDA 7.17 (Colour Content). This suggests that a resource issued in both colored and uncolored formats would be represented by two different expressions (in WEMI terms), and separate records might therefore be justified, but I confess I have not given the matter a great deal of thought. 
> 
> It is my understanding that the April 2015 update of RDA will remove the troublesome sentence in RDA 7.17.1.1 ("For instructions on recording information on hand-coloured items, see RDA 3.21") that mistakenly assumes all hand-coloring must be item-level information; see 6JSC/CILIP/4.
> 
> The FRBR model doesn't always work well for rare materials. Francis has passed along a citation to a 2012 article by by Patrick Le Boeuf called "Modeling Rare and Unique Documents: Using FRBRoo/CIDOC CRM" (Journal of Archival Organization, 10:96-106) that sounds interesting. I will have to find time to read it.
> 
> Manon
> 
> --
> Manon Théroux
> Head of Technical Services
> U.S. Senate Library
> Washington, DC
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu <mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>> wrote:
> 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 <tel: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 <http://britishart.yale.edu/architecture/building-conservation-project>. Please email the Study Room <mailto:ycba.studyroom at yale.edu> and/or the Reference Library <mailto:ycba.reference at yale.edu> 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/20150301/cd4fbf35/attachment-0001.html>