[DCRM-L] RBMS PS Review Q1: Core Elements
Pearson, Audrey
audrey.pearson at yale.edu
Tue Nov 21 07:26:36 MST 2017
I don’t believe that item-specific attributes should be core. If you look at the rest of the RDA instruction 0.6.2 that Francis cites, each of the user tasks it lists for describing resources are either related to a manifestation or a work. These are the basic pieces of information needed to distinguish and disambiguate one resource from another, which I believe is part of the “spirit” of core. In our current shared cataloging environment, most item-specific information, certainly related to provenance, is not visible when we contribute records to OCLC. This information is mainly accessed through each institution’s OPAC. Shouldn’t it be up to the institution, then, to decide how much and what item-specific information to routinely record?
I wonder whether making provenance information core would not always encourage the recording of the information, but would sometimes cause an institution to decide against using the RBMS Policy Statements because they wanted the flexibility of being able not to record it. In a perfect world, that wouldn’t be the case, but I could see it as an argument in a library that doesn’t collect for that reason, or doesn’t feel it has the resources to devote to fully record provenance.
I also wonder how we would institute item-specific information as core. Would one be obliged to record every tracing, every mark, every known previous owner? Or would it be like statement of responsibility in that it is core, but only the first instance is required? In an object with dispersed evidence, how would one chose? Would you be required to state a lack of any provenance evidence? Or would the absence of it in the description be interpreted as there is none? Researchers don’t interpret it that way—I frequently reply to reference questions asking about whether there is any provenance evidence in books whose catalog records make no mention of whether there is or not.
I’m in no way saying we shouldn’t encourage the recording of this information, but calling it core is problematic and fuzzy. At my own institution, there are bits of provenance we don’t always record: we don’t always make notes on every previous owner, and leave it up to cataloger judgement when to include it in a record. We don’t note every penciled bookseller’s note on endpapers. In core, would we be required to do so?
Core is a baseline, or the “floor” of a description, as the BSR states. I think it’s unreasonable and impractical to include item-specific relationship in that floor.
-Audrey
Audrey Pearson
Catalog/Metadata Librarian
Yale University Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library
P.O. Box 208330
New Haven, CT 06520-8330
203-432-1702
audrey.pearson at yale.edu<mailto:audrey.pearson at yale.edu>
From: DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Christine DeZelar-Tiedman
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 4:38 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] RBMS PS Review Q1: Core Elements
I would be hesitant to assert that provenance is always important for the materials I catalog. In many instances it is, but I'd prefer to have the judgment call and leave it as "if considered important". Or is there a mechanism for making it "Core if" so that it's always recorded if known but doesn't obligate you to say "unknown" if it isn't?
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Erin Blake <EBlake at folger.edu<mailto:EBlake at folger.edu>> wrote:
I’m inclined to say “Yes”: if the item is important for its value as an artifact, not (just) for the information it contains, the ethical standards of keeping track of provenance kick in, even if all that can be recorded is the Immediate source of acquisition, or “See paper files” or even “Provenance unknown” (for example, there’s a small group of 19th-century prints in my backlog with the provenance “On [Name Redacted]’s truck when she retired; she doesn’t remember where they came from or why.” It’s my goal to leave it untouched until I retire, and just add my name to the note.)
EB.
________
Erin C. Blake, Ph.D. | Head of Collection Information Services | Folger Shakespeare Library | 201 E. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC, 20003<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D201-2BE.-2BCapitol-2BSt.-2BSE-2C-2BWashington-2C-2BDC-2C-2B20003-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=cjytLXgP8ixuoHflwc-poQ&r=jqN-pAloaz_pzajLkzSNuLKTDAILJlIuU_UfDnqHRRc&m=7SzG_2Q4zhKd2EvflzIRqjKytwKxiwXKHKE5TlTW7RI&s=BA88KIyB-tKvugiThvxGNxcYcoxkXFmagSgGHR3gfRo&e=> | eblake at folger.edu<mailto:eblake at folger.edu> | office tel. +1 202-675-0323<tel:%2B1%20202-675-0323> | fax +1 202-675-0328<tel:%2B1%20202-675-0328> | www.folger.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.folger.edu_&d=DwMFaQ&c=cjytLXgP8ixuoHflwc-poQ&r=jqN-pAloaz_pzajLkzSNuLKTDAILJlIuU_UfDnqHRRc&m=7SzG_2Q4zhKd2EvflzIRqjKytwKxiwXKHKE5TlTW7RI&s=f-d6bk6kiW4X-Xe5Xdv4X3OoNdc61Lv5nBuWPrvF7jM&e=>
From: DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>] On Behalf Of Lapka, Francis
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 11:10 AM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] RBMS PS Review Q1: Core Elements
I am especially interested in community thoughts on the question: “Should any item attribute or relationship be core?” In the current DCRM tradition, copy-specific information is recorded “if considered important.”
It’s useful to establish the basis of core. For comparison, RDA says (in 0.6.2):
The RDA core elements for describing resources were selected according to the FRBR assessment of the value of each attribute and relationship in supporting the following user tasks: …
The BIBCO Standard Record says (page 3):
The standard seeks to ensure inclusion of the essential data elements necessary to meet user needs; it is a solid "floor" description of a resource that can be built upon in a shared environment.
If we define core in RBMS PS along the same lines, I wonder if item provenance merits consideration as core. Would item provenance *not* be considered an essential data element necessary to meet user needs for any agency applying the RBMS PS?
A challenge with item provenance is that it can be recorded in multiple elements:
• as mere statement of fact, in 2.18 Custodial History: Formerly owned by John Morris
• as material evidence, in 3.22 Note on Item-Specific Carrier Characteristic: Inscription of John Morris, 17th-century
• or as a relationship, in 22 Agents Associated with an Item: Morris, John [with RD former owner]
If provenance were core in the RBMS PS, I’d want agencies to have the freedom to record the data in the form(s) of their choosing.
Francis
From: DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Mascaro, Michelle
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 6:27 PM
To: 'DCRM Users' Group' <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Subject: [DCRM-L] RBMS PS Review Q1: Core Elements
The first question for RBMS PS review is which RDA elements should be identified as core for rare materials? The list in RDA proper is relatively short and there are rumblings that in the future there will be no list of core elements in RDA proper and specialist communities will be responsible for establishing their own lists.
Questions for discussion (please respond to the list):
* Should all transcribed elements be core?
* Is the proposed RBMS PS list of core elements (see list below) appropriate? Are they are elements that should be added or deleted?
* Should any item attribute or relationship be core?
The current draft of the RBMS PS proposes the following list of core manifestation elements:
Title
* Title proper
* Parallel title proper
* Other title information
* Parallel other title information
* Variant title
* Earlier title proper (for serials)
* Later title proper (for serials)
Statement of Responsibility
* Statement of responsibility relating to title proper (if more than one, only the first recorded is required)
* Parallel statement of responsibility relating to title proper?
Edition statement
* Designation of edition
* Parallel designation of edition
* Statement of responsibility relating to edition
* Parallel statement of responsibility relating to edition
* Designation of a named revision of an edition
* Parallel designation of named revision of edition
* Statement of responsibility relating to named revision of edition
* Parallel statement of responsibility relating to named revision of edition
Numbering of serials
* Numeric and/or alphabetic designation of first issue or part of sequence (for first or only sequence)
* Chronological designation of first issue or part of sequence (for first or only sequence)
* Numeric and/or alphabetic designation of last issue or part of sequence (for last or only sequence)
* Chronological designation of last issue or part of sequence (for last or only sequence)
* Alternate numeric and/or alphabetic designation of first issue or part of sequence
* Alternate chronological designation of first issue or part of sequence
* Alternate numeric and/or alphabetic designation of last issue or part of sequence
* Alternate chronological designation of last issue or part of sequence
Production statement
* Place of production
* Date of production (for a resource in an unpublished form)
Publication statement
* Place of publication (if more than one, only the first recorded is required)
* Parallel place of publication
* Publisher's name (if more than one, only the first recorded is required)
* Parallel publisher's name
* Date of publication
Distribution statement (if present on the resource)
* Place of publication
* Parallel place of distribution
* Distributor’s name
* Parallel distributor's name
* Date of distribution
Manufacture statement (if present on the resource)
* Place of manufacture
* Parallel place of manufacture
* Manufacturer’s name
* Parallel manufacturer's name
* Date of manufacture
Series statement
* Title proper of series
* Parallel title proper of series
* Other title information of series
* Parallel other title information of series
* Statement of responsibility relating to series
* Parallel statement of responsibility relating to series
* ISSN of series
* Numbering within series
* Title proper of subseries
* Parallel title proper of subseries
* Other title information of subseries
* Parallel other title information of subseries
* Statement of responsibility relating to subseries
* Parallel statement of responsibility relating to subseries
* ISSN of subseries
* Numbering within subseries
Mode of issuance
Frequency
Identifier for the manifestation
* Publisher's number for notated music
* Plate number for notated music
Note on title (note: Always note source of title for serials, graphics, or if the source is other than the preferred source.)
Media type
Carrier type
Carrier type
Extent (note: only if the resource is complete or if the total extent is known)
Dimensions
Base material (for still image resources)
Applied material (for still image resources)
Mount (for still image resources)
Layout (for cartographic resources)
And the following addendums to the RDA list of core elements for works and expressions:
Coverage of content (recommended)
Longitude and latitude
Dissertation or thesis information
Language of content
Script
Form of musical notation
Format of notated music
Medium of performance of musical content
Scale (for cartographic content)
Horizontal scale of cartographic content
Vertical scale of cartographic content
Projection of cartographic content
Other details of cartographic content
Attached is the RBMS PS for the chapter 0 for additional context and background to the RBMS PS. The RBMS PS were written to be read in tandem with the RDA proper instruction they correspond to, and consequentially some individual PSs may not make sense without referring to the original RDA instruction.
Best,
Michelle Mascaro, RBMS PS Editor
Head, Special Collections Metadata
University of California, San Diego
(858) 534-6759<tel:(858)%20534-6759>
mmascaro at ucsd.edu<mailto:mmascaro at ucsd.edu>
--
Christine DeZelar-Tiedman
Metadata and Emerging Technologies Librarian
University of Minnesota Libraries
160 Wilson Library
309 19th Ave. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55455
(612) 625-0381
dezel002 at umn.edu<mailto:dezel002 at umn.edu>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20171121/b2b28e9e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the DCRM-L
mailing list