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

[Noble, Richard]

I very much agree with Manon regarding 2.9 and 2.10.

As to 2.11, I'd go with the third option, "recording the date is
recommended", perhaps adding "even if not recording, consider making a
note". One reason for not recording would be complexities that don't play
well with 264 b4, but for which a suitable note can be made.

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>own.edu>

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Manon Theroux <manon.theroux at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20150312/58f34e85/attachment.html>