[DCRM-L] RBMS Q3: Sources of information

[Elizabeth O'Keefe]

I am forwarding comments on the RBMS PS for RDA 2.2.2.2, Preferred Sources
of Information, from the Cataloging Advisory Committee of ARLIS/NA. We
appreciate the chance to provide feedback on your very important work.

The RBMS PS for 2.2.2.2 introduces a distinction between single-sheet
resources and resources consisting of multiple pages, leaves, etc., and it
offers a different method for choosing the preferred source of information
for multi-sheet resources. Both changes are an improvement on RDA.

A book or other complex object can harbor descriptive information in many
different places, and it often becomes necessary to choose from among
multiple sources. A single sheet has a very limited set of possible
information sources: essentially two surfaces, recto and verso, plus, in
some cases, a container, envelope, etc.  It seems appropriate to make the
whole sheet (plus original container, etc.) the source, and leave it to the
cataloger’s judgment to evaluate the information, if any, on the resource.
It is also a good idea to have a format-neutral approach to single sheets,
with the same approach being applied to text, music, graphics, etc.

The PS for resources consisting of more than one sheet offers a more
nuanced approach towards determining what constitutes sources of
information in multi-sheet resources lacking a title page. Instead of just
relying on a single criterion, information source type (e.g. colophon,
caption, masthead), the RBMS PS starts out by preferring formally presented
information, no matter where it appears in the resource, over informally
presented information. A formal presentation of information seems more
likely to represent the creator’s or the producer’s intent, and therefore
should be preferred, no matter where it occurs in the resource. If there is
no formal presentation, the PS goes on to list various information source
types, which vary somewhat from those listed by RDA, since they reflect
production practices more characteristic of materials found in special
collections. Although this could sometimes result in a different title
transcription, we think it is worth it, because the title chosen applying
the RBMS PS guidelines better represents the resource described.

One question about the wording used to distinguish between single-sheet and
multi-sheet resources. The RBMS PS basically divides the universe of
manifestations on sheets/leaves/cards into:

                                Single sheet resources

                                Manifestations consisting of more than one
page, leaf, sheet, or card

But every single sheet has two pages, even if one is blank. Should “page”
be dropped from the description of the second category?

Liz O'Keefe



On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 4:13 PM, Mascaro, Michelle <mmascaro at ucsd.edu>
wrote:

> I am putting out a second call for responses to this question (see
> original email below) proposed to the list before Midwinter.  Please
> respond by the end of next week.
>
>
>
> I have heard from a couple people that their responses are not making it
> to the list.  The problem tends to be that the email they are sending from
> does not match the email they signed up for the listserv.  In these cases,
> DCRM-L drops the message and no notice is sent to the sender.  If you think
> your response may have been lost, please feel free to contact me off list.
>
>
>
> To start discussion…I am posting the text of one these lost emails that
> was recently sent to me.
>
>
>
>
>
> "The order of sources proposed by RBMS PS 2.2.2.2 seems relevant and
> effective to me (with the caveat that I don't catalog notated music and
> have done very few serials). And I'm comfortable with the fact that the
> proposed order could result in a different title than that identified by
> using the RDA order of sources. Titles are important in identifying
> manifestations so it's not insignificant to possibly have two different
> titles depending on the guideline you use but I think it's warranted here.
> The source order you suggest is closest to how rare materials identify
> themselves which allows for more accurate representation of the material
> and facilitates user tasks.
>
>
>
> It seems odd that we would instruct to ignore the early printed resources
> exception, though. I know a previous proposal by the RSC Rare Materials
> Working Group to change RDA 2.2.2.2 was not accepted and was withdrawn. Is
> the plan to issue a new proposal based on this RBMS PS?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kate"
>
>
>
> Kate S. Moriarty, MSW, MLS | Rare Book Catalog Librarian | Associate
> Professor | Pius XII Memorial Library | Saint Louis University | 3650
> Lindell Blvd. | St. Louis, MO 63108 | 314-977-3024 | kate.moriarty at slu.edu
> | http://lib.slu.edu/special-collections
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On Behalf Of *Mascaro,
> Michelle
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:45 PM
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
> *Subject:* [DCRM-L] RBMS Q3: Sources of information
>
>
>
> Happy New Year.  The next issue I would like to present for community
> discussion is sources of information.  The current draft of the RBMS PS
> proposes a different order of preference for choosing a source of
> information for resources that lack a title page than what is in RDA proper
> (including the RDA early print resources exception).  Due to the complexity
> of the changes, I am attaching a copy of the 2.2 RBMS PS side by side with
> RDA text for additional context. (I omitted the RDA instructions for
> subrules where there are no PS.)  The section about manifestations with no
> title page, title sheet, or title card is under 2.2.2.  I am particularly
> interested in community feedback on both the proposed order and general
> thoughts on whether it is problematic for the RBMS PS to deviate from RDA
> here. (Technically, the same resource could be described with two different
> title whether one is following RDA proper or the RBMS PS.)
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Michelle Mascaro
>
> Head, Special Collections Metadata
>
> University of California, San Diego
>
> (858) 534-6759
>
> mmascaro at ucsd.edu
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20180302/4b938a47/attachment.html>