[DCRM-L] more PCC rare materials BSR/CSR questions (RDA

Mon Mar 16 12:48:53 MDT 2015

Thanks, Bob and Susan-

The BSR instructions for these elements could certainly be edited to add
text along the following lines (the two middle sentences are already there,
the 1st and last sentences would be new):

2.9.2. Place of distribution
PCC Core for *rare materials *when present in the resource. Generally
transcribe all places of distribution (see DCRM(B,G,M) 4B6). If a place of
distribution is known to be fictitious or incorrect, supply a correction in
square brackets (see DCRM(B,G,M) 4B9). If no place of distribution appears
in the resource, the element is not required.

Unfortunately, when we get to RDA 2.10.2 (place of manufacture), following
the model above presents a conflict with DCRM(B) 4E2:

4E2. Supplied place of manufacture

If the place of manufacture does not appear, or is transcribed as part of
another
area or element, supply the place of manufacture in square brackets. Use a
modern English form of the name, if there is one, and include the name of
the
larger jurisdiction if considered necessary for identification. Provide a
justification for the supplied place in a note if necessary.

New Haven, Ct. : Published by E.L. & J.W. Barber, 1840 ([New
Haven] : Hitchcock & Stafford, printers)

This may confuse people. I guess such conflicts are just things we have to
live with for the time being until we have an RDA version of DCRM?

Manon

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Robert Maxwell <robert_maxwell at byu.edu>
wrote:

>  I agree also, but I want to STONGLY urge whoever is writing up the BSR
> section on this that it be made clear that “core” does NOT mean you have to
> fill out all the missing pieces of information. The revision to RDA was
> meant to clarify that you do *not* need to do things like this:
>
>
>
> 264 _1   $a Venundatur Parrhisiis in vico Sancti Jacobi : $b ab Alexandro
> Aliatte e regione diui Benedicti, $c [1505]
>
> 264 _3   $a [Place of manufacture not identified] : $b Impressus impensis
> Alexandri Aliatt[a]e, $c vltima Martij MDV [1505 March 31]
>
>
>
> or
>
>
>
> 264 _1 $a Burbank, CA : $b Turner Entertainment, $c [2009]
>
> 264 _2 $a [Place of distribution not identified] : $b Warner Home Video,
> $c [date of distribution not identified]
>
>
>
> Once you’re fully filled out the publication elements (i.e. what goes in
> 264 _1 $a, $b, and $c) the core is fulfilled as far as RDA is concerned, so
> all those “… not identified” elements are *not* required even if you do
> want to record information about the distributor or manufacturer. You only
> need to record what’s there on the resource, not “filler” elements for
> missing information.
>
>
>
> The feeling that all these “… not identified” elements for distribution
> and manufacture were *required* was part of the “cascading vortex of
> horror” issue that the 2015 RDA revision was meant to rectify, so let’s not
> reintroduce them with a core requirement that implies that they are
> required after all. All we want to say is “if information about
> distribution or manufacture is present in the resource, record it.” At
> least I should think that’s all we want to require. We do not need to
> require filling out elements that are not present in the resource (the “…
> not identified” elements), simply to “fully” fill out a 264 field. The
> following are acceptable and much preferable in my opinion:
>
>
>
> 264 _1   $a Venundatur Parrhisiis in vico Sancti Jacobi : $b ab Alexandro
> Aliatte e regione diui Benedicti, $c [1505]
>
> 264 _3   $b Impressus impensis Alexandri Aliatt[a]e, $c vltima Martij MDV
> [1505 March 31]
>
>
>
> or
>
>
>
> 264 _1 $a Burbank, CA : $b Turner Entertainment, $c [2009]
>
> 264 _2 $b Warner Home Video
>
>
>
> 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 [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Andrews, Susan
> *Sent:* Friday, March 13, 2015 1:42 PM
> *To:* dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
>
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] more PCC rare materials BSR/CSR questions (RDA
>
>
>
> HI everyone,
>
> I agree with the suggestion to make 2.9 and 2.10 core for rare materials,
> as long as we can indeed qualify it with "if presented (or given) on the
> item".  I don't want to face populating my rare book descriptions with a
> whole bunch of "place of distribution not identified", "manufacturer not
> identified", etc. etc.   We need to be careful about "core" status in RDA
> because it usually means that you have to record *something*  for that
> element, even if it is one of those dreaded  [     … not identified]
> statements.    I am very much in favour of recording everything that we
> *have* (publisher,manufacturer,distributor) but not the things we *don't*
> have.
>
>
>
> Cheers, Sue.
>
>
>
> *********************************************
>
> *Sue Andrews*
>
> *Principal Cataloguer*
>
> *University of British Columbia Library*
>
> *2198 Health Sciences Mall, Vancouver BC V6T 1Z3*
>
> *Tel. 604-822-4995 <604-822-4995>  Email: **susan.andrews at ubc.ca*
> <susan.andrews at ubc.ca>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Message: 1
>
> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 10:25:11 -0400
>
> From: "Noble, Richard" <richard_noble at brown.edu>
>
> To: "DCRM Users' Group" <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
>
> Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] more PCC rare materials BSR/CSR questions (RDA
>
>         2.9, 2.10, 2.11)
>
> Message-ID:
>
>         <
> CAO86_RrcCv-mVmfimr8k4Jphs4dVJZ78y54rtAsDYtVH_MGv5g at mail.gmail.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>
>
> 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 <Richard_Noble at Br%20%3cRICHARD_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 Th?roux
>
> >
>
> > 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-0001.html
> >
>
>
>
> End of DCRM-L Digest, Vol 109, Issue 17
>
> ***************************************
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150316/65459a32/attachment-0001.html>