[DCRM-L] AMREMM and RDA

[Matthew C. Haugen]

Here is a follow-up question in the meantime; although a record (it seems)
cannot be explicitly dual-coded as 040 $e amremm $e rda, I expect that
access points would generally now be RDA-compliant; are there any arguments
in favor or against allowing other RDA-flavored hybrid practices into $e
amremm records not explicitly accounted for in the AMREMM manual?

For example: using 264_0 instead of 260; adding 33x fields; 563 instead of
500 for Binding descriptions; bracketing supplied data in adjacent
subfields separately rather than inclusively; expanding abbreviations?

Thank you for your input,

Matt

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu>
wrote:

> With a 2003 publication, AMREMM* would be ready for revision, even without
> the need to reconsider its principles and provisions in light of RDA. A
> couple of points of interest that put it conceptually outside the DCRM
> suite:
>
>
>
> 1.      Although published by the BSC through our parent body ACRL, it
> has a personal author, Gregory Pass. He consulted widely with the BSC and
> other groups, and generally (if not always) accommodated our suggestions,
> but at the end of the day, he is the author.
>
>
>
> 2.     Gregory's remit was to align scholarly conventions used in
> describing medieval manuscripts with library descriptive conventions based
> on AACR2. One of the main deviations in practice is that of main entry.
> 1.1B6, for example, gives main entries in examples of devising titles, and
> it is clear that the manuscript as a physical object is the source of main
> entry.
>
>
> [Books of hours : use of Rouen]
>
> *Main entry under**: Catholic Church*
>
> *Uniform title**: Book of hours (Ms. National Art Library. MSL/1902/1654)*
>
> *Added entry under**: National Art Library (Great Britain). Manuscript.
> MSL/1902/1654*
>
>
>
>
>
> It's sensible that manuscripts of all time periods should be considered
> together. It will be interesting to see what comes of it.
>
>
>
> *I can't resist bringing up a quip I made at the time, which I thought was
> funny but not sure anyone else did. Since the title is *De*scriptive *C*ataloging
> of *A*ncient, *M*edieval, *R*enaissance, and *E*arly *M*odern *M*anuscripts,
> we missed the chance of acronyming it DECAMREMM.
>
>
>
>
>
> Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu |
>
>
>
> *From:* DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On Behalf Of *Lapka,
> Francis
> *Sent:* Thursday, 07 September, 2017 08:20
>
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] AMREMM and RDA
>
>
>
> Thank you Matt for providing a good summary of where things stand. To this
> I'll add that BSR guidelines for manuscripts are in development. A draft
> will be shared with this list soon.
>
>
>
> In 2018, I expect that the RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee will
> initiate additional activity concerning manuscripts and RDA. At that time,
> we'll consider options such as those that Matt has described.
>
>
> Francis
>
>
>
>
>
> Francis Lapka  ·  Catalog Librarian
>
> Dept. of Rare Books and Manuscripts
>
> Yale Center for British Art
>
> 203.432.9672  ·  francis.lapka at yale.edu
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> on behalf of Matthew C.
> Haugen <matthew.haugen at columbia.edu>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 6, 2017 4:41 PM
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] AMREMM and RDA
>
>
>
> HI Ryan,
>
>
>
> I'm not aware of any information on creating RDA-compliant AMREMM
> records.
>
>
>
> The BIBCO and CONSER standard record profiles contain provisions for
> creating RDA-compliant DCRM records for all of the AACR2-based DCRM
> manuals, except for DCRM (MSS), though I believe that update is pending.
>
>
>
> And the DCRM Task Force had postponed work on manuscript materials of all
> time periods when drafting the RBMS Policy Statements for RDA-based rare
> materials instructions, so that work remains to be done for modern
> manuscripts as well.
>
>
>
> I wonder if any of these options might be feasible or desirable for BSC to
> pursue?
>
>
>
> 1. Publish an RDA-compliant revision to AMREMM as a standalone manual,
> like the original.
>
> 2. Draft additional RBMS Policy Statements for these materials, that when
> published along with the rest of RBMS-PS, would supersede AMREMM.
>
> 3. Submit provisions to be added to the BSR profile for creating
> RDA-compliant records using AMREMM as it currently stands, similar to the
> current arrangement with the other DCRM manuals.
>
> 4. Publish its own similar application profile for creating RDA-compliant
> records using AMREMM as it currently stands,  without going through LC/PCC.
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Ryan Hildebrand <rhilde at uoregon.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Can anyone point me to helpful information on creating RDA compliant
> AMREMM records? I don’t have specific questions at the moment, but would
> like to understand issues others may have already tackled.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Ryan Hildebrand
>
> Authorities & Special Collections Cataloging Librarian
>
> University of Oregon Libraries
>
> 1299 University of Oregon
>
> Eugene OR 97403-1299
>
> (541) 346-1844
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> --
> Matthew C. Haugen
> Rare Book Cataloger
> 102 Butler Library
> Columbia University Libraries
> E-mail: matthew.haugen at columbia.edu
> Phone: 212-851-2451
>
>


-- 

-- 
Matthew C. Haugen
Rare Book Cataloger
102 Butler Library
Columbia University Libraries
E-mail: matthew.haugen at columbia.edu
Phone: 212-851-2451
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20180423/585447cb/attachment.html>