[DCRM-L] Fwd: [PCCLIST] New policy regarding limited use of ISBD punctuation in bibliographic records

Fri Dec 14 13:03:52 MST 2018

Erin’s message sums up my thoughts too. An automated process to remove or add punctuation will probably be fine, with few if any concerns unique to rare materials cataloging. For confirmation, it’d be reassuring to see more testing or an extremely detailed specification of the rules governing the conversion process.

An eyebrow rises at one detail in the NLM test spec<http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/documents/NLM_File_Description.docx>: remove opening and closing square brackets for 245 $h. That seems undesirable. It’s unclear if an OCLC conversion would do the same.

Ben Abrahamse says I can share his email below. It sheds light. Ben writes on behalf of PCC’s Standing Committee on Automation, not OCLC.

Francis

From: Benjamin A Abrahamse [mailto:babraham at mit.edu]
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2018 11:50 AM
To: Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu>; bremer at oclc.org; xlli at ucdavis.edu
Subject: RE: New policy regarding limited use of ISBD punctuation in bibliographic records

Francis,

Thank you for the email.

At the moment, we are not developing a batch process to change existing records, although it’s being discussed in various places.

I believe OCLC will be working on scripts to support conversion between punctuated and unpunctuated data “on the fly” as it were, for users in the client. But that any further implementation, such as retrospective conversion, will depend on how the community at large responds to the new policy.

That said: certainly I think any proposed batch conversion of MARC records would necessarily be limited in scope to only those punctuations that appear at the end of fields and subfields. And, at that point, we would want collections of records from various specialist communities. I hesitate to ask you to make one now, because I don’t know when that will happen.

I hope this helps,

Ben

From: Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>>
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2018 11:32 AM
To: bremer at oclc.org<mailto:bremer at oclc.org>; xlli at ucdavis.edu<mailto:xlli at ucdavis.edu>; Benjamin A Abrahamse <babraham at mit.edu<mailto:babraham at mit.edu>>
Subject: New policy regarding limited use of ISBD punctuation in bibliographic records

Dear colleagues,
The announcement on ISBD punctuation has begun to prompt discussion in the rare materials community (on our DCRM-L list). Initial reactions seem supportive.
We’re very much keen to know more about the details of implementation. For at least a portion of our community, punctuation in transcribed fields is considered vital. Our transcription policies for such punctuation sometimes vary from those used by the general community. We want to make sure that all batch processes correctly handle removal (or addition) of punctuation.
LC, NLM, and OCLC have offered compiled sets of test records here<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.loc.gov%2Faba%2Fpcc%2Fdocuments%2Ftest-records-punctuation.html&data=02%7C01%7Cfrancis.lapka%40yale.edu%7Ccaafc32acf5e46725f4508d661e47915%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C1%7C636804031281478996&sdata=%2BXRFJmaGw%2BeqGfdoa8mNbJoku4njm6GAwNh1es4Uq48%3D&reserved=0>. At a skim, there appear to be only a few rare materials records tested (coded dcrmb, in the NLM set).
If the RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee were to compile a batch of records (in a .mrc file, say) representing rare materials cataloging of a variety of formats, would it be possible to run the batch process against the file and return the output to us (in a .mrc file)? We are especially interested in the batch processes executed by OCLC.
Best,
Francis Lapka
Chair, ACRL/RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee

From: DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Erin Blake
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2018 1:02 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Fwd: [PCCLIST] New policy regarding limited use of ISBD punctuation in bibliographic records

I'd love for all ISBD punctuation to be machine-supplied, and I don't see any problem with new PCC DCRM records following the three options.

The only conern I've got with the proposal is with step 4: we'd want to make sure adquate testing is done with DCRM records as part of  "Work with bibliographic utilities and other interested parties to develop tools and specifications to automate the process of removal or reinsertion of punctuation." There might well be "terminal periods integral to the data (e.g., recorded as part of abbreviations, initials, etc.) " that rarely come up outside Special Collections. Inadequate testing would let PCC say "the percentage of PCC records affected is statistically insignificant" rather than "the percentage of PCC DCRM records affected is unacceptably large."

Erin.

Erin Blake, Ph.D.  |  Senior Cataloger  |  Folger Shakespeare Library  |  201 E. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC, 20003  |  eblake at folger.edu<mailto:eblake at folger.edu>  |  office tel. +1 202-675-0323  |  www.folger.edu<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folger.edu&data=02%7C01%7Cfrancis.lapka%40yale.edu%7C8ea6d219c921409303d908d661ee47f1%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C1%7C636804073387073918&sdata=063k98ZRubfmdBNPpTc23gJp9SngGBeK%2Fi%2BX6T9FStg%3D&reserved=0>

On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 12:53 PM Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>> wrote:
I think the new policy is sensible. Two questions, to start:

  1.  The statement below says that PCC will “work with bibliographic utilities and other interested parties to develop tools and specifications to automate the process of removal or reinsertion of punctuation.” Does RBMS/BSC have anything to add to those discussions? Will the general automated processes (in OCLC, for example) work well enough with DCRM descriptions, including those that employ “double” punctuation? Has anyone in our community examined OCLC’s test record set, provided here: http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/documents/test-records-punctuation.html<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.loc.gov%2Faba%2Fpcc%2Fdocuments%2Ftest-records-punctuation.html&data=02%7C01%7Cfrancis.lapka%40yale.edu%7C8ea6d219c921409303d908d661ee47f1%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C1%7C636804073387083930&sdata=3LUBclwwMhV6ZLk7S6v%2BQmiTv79PnI42ck7aGGZtfJk%3D&reserved=0> ?

  1.  Editors of the forthcoming RBMS Policy Statements for RDA will probably have to consider these options for the PS guidance on punctuation. For *DCRM* descriptions, should we (or can we) allow the same three options presented by PCC, when the policy is implemented in the spring?

Francis

From: DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 4:21 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>

Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Fwd: [PCCLIST] New policy regarding limited use of ISBD punctuation in bibliographic records

I think we'd still want ISBD punctuation for display, but that's something machines are really good at.

Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> |

From: DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Moody, Honor M.
Sent: Wednesday, 12 December, 2018 16:11
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Fwd: [PCCLIST] New policy regarding limited use of ISBD punctuation in bibliographic records

Personally, I’m lamenting the hours of my life wasted in adding ISBD punctuation to pre-AACR2 records and correcting it when reviewing the records of others.

Honor

From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>> On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 3:49 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Subject: [DCRM-L] Fwd: [PCCLIST] New policy regarding limited use of ISBD punctuation in bibliographic records

My first reaction is to be glad that dcrmb records with original punctuation retained might be a bit less cluttered. Others' thoughts?

RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187<tel:(401)%20863-1187>
<Richard_Noble at Br<mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__own.edu%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DWO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ%26r%3DgfxDZP5m9KyeWhmono1ADELcLUOEQEwGHybTpd5N2Wk%26m%3DFXC_fIjOY6iqyFFAwuWAU0jWQfwciIVJUSBeiP5SojY%26s%3DnJxQ3Cy7j34ugPEM6j4wwm-dRmuykb9hgUUBDudUStI%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cfrancis.lapka%40yale.edu%7C8ea6d219c921409303d908d661ee47f1%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C636804073387083930&sdata=LYPbAuPMs6oYqO132ymYz3c6x%2FgKo0rr7w0osFD8GGY%3D&reserved=0>>

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Xiaoli Li <xlli at ucdavis.edu<mailto:xlli at ucdavis.edu>>
Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 3:17 PM
Subject: [PCCLIST] New policy regarding limited use of ISBD punctuation in bibliographic records
To: <PCCLIST at listserv.loc.gov<mailto:PCCLIST at listserv.loc.gov>>

PCC colleagues,

At its recent meeting<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__www.loc.gov_aba_pcc_documents_PoCo-2D2018_PoCo-2DAgenda-2D2018.pdf%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DWO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ%26r%3DgfxDZP5m9KyeWhmono1ADELcLUOEQEwGHybTpd5N2Wk%26m%3DFXC_fIjOY6iqyFFAwuWAU0jWQfwciIVJUSBeiP5SojY%26s%3DPN8uoCAEqrLQrw1EC47rDM-_t_olzeAS5Tprvjdn2VI%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cfrancis.lapka%40yale.edu%7C8ea6d219c921409303d908d661ee47f1%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C636804073387093934&sdata=NklBYdUsIfCKVzimgXqw1dGEyGw2TnVA0lnmLnYNWws%3D&reserved=0>, the PCC Policy Committee reaffirmed its decision to allow bibliographic records with limited ISBD punctuation to be treated as full-level PCC copy. This decision comes after reviewing feedback from test participants who evaluated three test sets of records provided by Library of Congress, the National Library of Medicine, and OCLC. For more information about the test, please read the message below or click here<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__www.loc.gov_aba_pcc_documents_test-2Drecords-2Dpunctuation.html%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DWO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ%26r%3DgfxDZP5m9KyeWhmono1ADELcLUOEQEwGHybTpd5N2Wk%26m%3DFXC_fIjOY6iqyFFAwuWAU0jWQfwciIVJUSBeiP5SojY%26s%3DIvzaL0LZeRpx3M4b5JKuaBJrnYUed2vSt7n866JOyjk%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cfrancis.lapka%40yale.edu%7C8ea6d219c921409303d908d661ee47f1%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C636804073387103947&sdata=dSX0HpYVVyEhnDL31O2LzJhhj%2BnUPiqcfj5hbsPJx0k%3D&reserved=0>.

Beginning in spring 2019, PCC libraries will have three options to handle ISBD punctuation when authenticating new records:

  1.  Continue current practice
  2.  Omit terminal period in any field*; code Leader/18 (Descriptive cataloging form) “i”
  3.  Omit ISBD punctuation between subfields of descriptive fields and omit terminal period in any field*; code Leader/18 (Descriptive cataloging form) “c”
* Exception: Terminal periods integral to the data (e.g., recorded as part of abbreviations, initials, etc.) should not be omitted.

Options 2 and 3 are optional, not mandatory. However, creating records with limited punctuation is expected to save time for catalogers, simplify training of new catalogers, make it easier to map data to and from other formats, and allow for an easier transition to linked data or vice versa (e.g., mapping BIBFRAME to MARC).

To facilitate the implementation, PCC will:

  1.  Develop and maintain style guidelines for records with limited punctuation;
  2.  Provide adequate training resources for catalogers and revise PCC documentation to update policies and include examples with limited punctuation;
  3.  Request that LC Network Development and MARC Standards Office and bibliographic utilities revise MARC 21 documentation to include examples with limited punctuation;
  4.  Work with bibliographic utilities and other interested parties to develop tools and specifications to automate the process of removal or reinsertion of punctuation;
  5.  Encourage vendors, bibliographic utilities, etc., to explore functionality to index and display records with limited punctuation as defined by the PCC;
  6.  Encourage vendors, bibliographic utilities, etc., to explore functionality to allow their users to easily add or remove punctuation as needed.
The Policy Committee is in the process of developing a detailed implementation plan which will include the aforementioned style guidelines. I will share more information with you as it becomes available. In the meantime, if you have questions, suggestions, or comments, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Xiaoli Li
PCC Chair
Head of Content Support Services
UC Davis Library
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20181214/2c7e6d14/attachment-0001.html>