[DCRM-L] more PCC rare materials BSR/CSR questions (RDA 2.9, 2.10, 2.11)

[Manon Theroux]

At the RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee (BSC) meeting at ALA
Midwinter, chair Nina Schneider reported on my behalf that the PCC Standing
Committee on Standards had recently completed (well, almost completed) a
project to convert the instructions in the "Notes" column of the BIBCO RDA
Standard Record (BSR) and CONSER RDA Standard Record (CSR) to LC-PCC Policy
Statements. These were published in the February update to the RDA Toolkit.
Many of these instructions were DCRM-related and had been originally added
with BSC approval.

The project left a few issues unresolved. Earlier this week, Nina forwarded
to this list some of the outstanding questions on RDA 1.8 that I sent her
on behalf of the SCS. With her permission I am sending some additional
questions that have come up since then. Please feel free to express your
opinions, especially those of you who are currently creating bib records
coded PCC in 042 and RDA/DCRM in 040.

*RDA 2.9, 2.10, and 2.11 (aka the "Cascading vortext of doom")*

In RDA, the "core if" conditional requirements for the distribution,
manufacture, and copyright elements will be removed as part of the April
update. There will no longer be a requirement to include these elements
when elements of publication are not available. See:
http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-29-rev-Sec-final.pdf

Because these elements are no longer RDA Core, I think they will need to be
removed from the BSR/CSR unless they are given a new status of "PCC Core"
or "PCC Recommended".

*Questions: *Should these elements be considered "PCC Core" for rare
materials now that they are no longer "RDA Core"? I think the answer is
"yes" for 2.9 (distributor) and 2.10 (manufacture) - if the statements
appear on the resource and are appropriate for transcription according to
DCRM rules, then we want catalogers to transcribe them. Do you agree?

I'm less sure about 2.11 (copyright date). DCRM says not to transcribe
copyright date as publication date, but has the option to give the
copyright date in a note (either a quoted note or a general note). However,
DCRM is an AACR2-based standard, and thus didn't have RDA's stand-alone
"copyright date" element to contend with. I think there are 3 possible
scenarios for 2.11 in the BSR/CSR (the PCC PS would also be adjusted as
needed):

- delete 2.11 from the BSR/CSR - recording copyright date would entirely be
left to cataloger judgment
- make 2.11 "PCC Core" (always record the date in 264 2nd indicator 4 if
present; you would also have the option to make a note in addition, of
course)
- make 2.11 "PCC Recommended" (recording the date is recommended but not
strictly required)
The BSR and CSR are here:
http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/bibco/documents/PCC-RDA-BSR.pdf
http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/conser/documents/CONSER-RDA-CSR.doc

Thanks,
Manon

--

Manon Théroux

Head of Technical Services

U.S. Senate Library

SR-B15 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, DC  20510-7112
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150311/b46e47d8/attachment.html>