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

[Matthew C. Haugen]

Overall, I'm in favor of this new policy, but I agree that it's worth
investigating the rare-specific implications for transcribed punctuation in
transcribed statements. It also raises  questions about ISBD syntax or
presentation more broadly.

As discovery layers manipulate MARC data into separate fields or facets, or
as the data is further repurposed (mapped into new schemas, exported into
Zotero or Endnote, turned into linked open data, etc.), the prescribed
punctuation may no longer serve a useful purpose. Worldcat, for example,
chops up the 245 field, displaying title and SOR on two separate lines,
with a bunch of other stuff intervening between them in the display, so it
makes sense for their display to remove the separating punctuation present
in the MARC record. But this also potentially obscures any grammatical or
logical connection between 245 $a and $c as a continuous statement, or any
indication that the order of display corresponds to the order of data as
recorded by the cataloger in MARC or as presented on the title page.

If there's no guarantee that ISBD order will be preserved in display or
mapping, it might also impact the RBMS PS guidance on transposition of
data, or for transcribing grammatically linked elements belonging to
different fields, as well.  Potentially, the RDA/LRM approach to
"manifestation statements" might simplify that part...

Matt

On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 3:31 PM Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu>
wrote:

> Yes, you’re right! So long as the systems (always perfectly reliable of
> course) reinstate the brackets in the OPAC, if we display the information
> in ISBD style.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On Behalf Of *Erin
> Blake
> *Sent:* Friday, December 14, 2018 3:19 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
>
>
>
> 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
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.loc.gov%2Faba%2Fpcc%2Fdocuments%2FNLM_File_Description.docx&data=02%7C01%7Cfrancis.lapka%40yale.edu%7C58bc346e12bf4943f76508d66201846a%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C1%7C636804156005908359&sdata=DTuubTVXLeqtxs2x%2F8JvtRK92nQIHNXJO3V5CJPPmgE%3D&reserved=0>:
> 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%7C58bc346e12bf4943f76508d66201846a%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C636804156005918372&sdata=D07ajWpn3v3dAHBhraGnBhAh9gaPRdjdJG3CMNQYiU8%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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.google.com%2F%3Fq%3D201%2BE.%2BCapitol%2BSt.%2BSE%2C%2BWashington%2C%2BDC%2C%2B20003%26entry%3Dgmail%26source%3Dg&data=02%7C01%7Cfrancis.lapka%40yale.edu%7C58bc346e12bf4943f76508d66201846a%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C1%7C636804156005918372&sdata=EJgb9MgXaRBvN5ZzBAVw0L2%2B7cG4yy%2FgCSUvjTi0hPQ%3D&reserved=0>
> |  eblake at folger.edu  |  office tel. +1 202-675-0323 <(202)%20675-0323>
> |  www.folger.edu
>
>
>
> 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%7C58bc346e12bf4943f76508d66201846a%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C636804156005938382&sdata=8BHrYMU9coDeADrn0dd5%2FYeNjbGsZKln%2Fu1zLuxtdaw%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>
>
>
>
> ---------- 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%7C58bc346e12bf4943f76508d66201846a%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C636804156005948387&sdata=yJqclBqj6UiGjb2M7FJ0HG%2BwuTya%2FSh%2BVz5Qqb%2BpVzc%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%7C58bc346e12bf4943f76508d66201846a%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C636804156005958401&sdata=Iqxgc5dr5mFqE3T7Q7E8rNdnnvyR8WAviA%2BgbO6yP5M%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
>
>

-- 

-- 
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/20181214/7219fdfd/attachment-0001.html>