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

[Erin Blake]

Removing opening and closing square brackets from 245$h seems right to me,
provided that the record is coded "ISBD punctuation omitted." That way I
know that I need to system supply all ISBD punctuation.

Alternatively, there could be a new LDR/18 for "ISBD punctuation omitted
except for square brackets in 245$h" :)

Erin.


On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 3:04 PM Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu>
wrote:

> 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>
> *Sent:* Friday, December 14, 2018 11:32 AM
> *To:* bremer at oclc.org; xlli at ucdavis.edu; Benjamin A Abrahamse <
> 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
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=201+E.+Capitol+St.+SE,+Washington,+DC,+20003&entry=gmail&source=g>
> |  eblake at folger.edu  |  office tel. +1 202-675-0323 <(202)%20675-0323>
> |  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>
> 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] *On Behalf Of *Deborah
> J. Leslie
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 12, 2018 4:21 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 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 |
>
>
>
> *From:* DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
> <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> *On Behalf Of *Noble, Richard
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 12, 2018 3:49 PM
> *To:* DCRM Revision Group List <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
> <(401)%20863-1187>
>
> <Richard_Noble at Br <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>
> 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>
>
>
>
> 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/20181214/18769f24/attachment-0001.html>