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

Thu Feb 6 11:57:38 MST 2020

Thanks Matt.

In your example, the OCLC macro removed the “: :” before 260 ǂb.

In light of that erroneous (?) change, I re-punctuated the same record as follows:

245 14 The moral and religious improvement of the poor: : ǂb A sermon delivered on the evening of October 20, 1824, in the Tabernacle Church, Salem/ / ǂc By Elias Cornelius..
260 ## Salem [Mass.]: : ǂb Published and sold by Whipple and Lawrence,, ǂc 1824..

Running the PunctuationRemove macro returns this:

245 14 The moral and religious improvement of the poor ǂb A sermon delivered on the evening of October 20, 1824, in the Tabernacle Church, Salem ǂc By Elias Cornelius.
260 ## Salem [Mass.] ǂb Published and sold by Whipple and Lawrence ǂc 1824.

The macro appears to evaluate any repeated punctuation marks (at end of subfields) as errors, except the double periods at the end of each area. That’s not what we want, is it?

Francis

Francis Lapka
Senior Catalogue Librarian
Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts
Yale Center for British Art
203-432-9672  ·  francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>

From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> On Behalf Of Matthew C. Haugen
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 12:45 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] FW: [PCCLIST] New policy regarding limited use of ISBD punctuation in bibliographic records

Hi all,

With the updated PCC Guidelines for Minimally Punctuated MARC Bibliographic Records<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.loc.gov%2Faba%2Fpcc%2Fdocuments%2FPCC-Guidelines-Minimally-Punctuated-MARC-Data.docx&data=02%7C01%7Cfrancis.lapka%40yale.edu%7Cff51d3fcfa3a409a4a0d08d7aa633bce%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C1%7C637165215495875161&sdata=Hn%2BMVT9IOEA%2BxL19Z8WnRvYoC5KXsqGrf4Cx%2B4sMAFs%3D&reserved=0> effective January 2020, there is now the option to remove non-integral punctuation between subfields, I wonder what other institutions are doing to account for this in their workflows, automated processes, or public displays, especially regarding special collections materials, or records following DCRM and legacy standards (DCRB, BDRB, etc.). At Columbia, we are not currently creating minimally punctuated records but expect they may begin to show up in copy, so we are in the process of testing how they will display in our OPAC and investigating what our authorities vendor (Backstage) will do to them in record processing.

It seems that when this DCRM-L thread last left off, we considered transcribed original punctuation to be integral to the data even if not part of an abbreviation or initial, but I note that the new OCLC PunctuationRemove macro removes some "double punctuation."

For example, in OCLC #191251989:
245 14 The moral and religious improvement of the poor. : ǂb A sermon delivered on the evening of October 20, 1824, in the Tabernacle Church, Salem. / ǂc By Elias Cornelius.
260 Salem [Mass.]: : ǂb Published and sold by Whipple and Lawrence., ǂc 1824.

becomes

24514 The moral and religious improvement of the poor. ǂb A sermon delivered on the evening of October 20, 1824, in the Tabernacle Church, Salem. ǂc By Elias Cornelius
260 Salem [Mass.] ǂb Published and sold by Whipple and Lawrence. ǂc 1824

Additionally, the descriptive convention coding changes from Leader/18 (Desc)=a, and 040 ǂe dcrb, to Leader/18 (Desc)=c, and 040 ǂe aacr/2 ǂe dcrb.

(I did not save these changes to the master record).

Thanks for any feedback,

Matthew

On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 9:52 AM Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu<mailto:DJLeslie at folger.edu>> wrote:

This more modest approach seems good to me. At first I was concerned that there would be negative ramifications for institutions who do original punctuation, but that seems to be covered by this exception: *Exception: terminal periods integral to the data (e.g., recorded as part of abbreviations, initials, etc.) should not be omitted. In other words, systems shouldn't be stripping punctuation.

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

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV<mailto:PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>] On Behalf Of Xiaoli Li
Sent: Tuesday, 02 April, 2019 12:00
To: PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV<mailto:PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Subject: [PCCLIST] New policy regarding limited use of ISBD punctuation in bibliographic records

PCC colleagues,

Last December, I announced the new policy regarding limited use of ISBD punctuation in bibliographic records. Since then, we have been working on the implementation plan. The complexity of implementing all three options outlined in that email (dated 12/12/2018 and included below) at the same time presents more challenges than we anticipated. In addition, there are issues pertinent to access point fields that require more discussion. We believe we should move forward but need to do so in a way that is manageable and will allow us to achieve some consistency. After considering all the possibilities, we have revised the policy which to address punctuation in descriptive fields only. The revised policy will be implemented in phases:

Phase 1: Beginning April 8, 2019, PCC libraries will have two options regarding inclusion of terminal periods when newly authenticating bibliographic records:

a. Continue current practice (fully punctuated); code Leader/18=i

b. Omit terminal period in any descriptive field*; code Leader/18=i

*Exception: terminal periods integral to the data (e.g., recorded as part of abbreviations, initials, etc.) should not be omitted.

Special Note: when updating an existing PCC record, catalogers should follow the punctuation pattern already established in that record.

The guidelines for Phase 1 and a spreadsheet containing all MARC fields that are affected by the new policy are attached to this email. Both documents have also been posted on the PCC website:

  *   Guidelines: http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/documents/guidelines-terminal-periods.pdf<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.loc.gov%2Faba%2Fpcc%2Fdocuments%2Fguidelines-terminal-periods.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Cfrancis.lapka%40yale.edu%7Cff51d3fcfa3a409a4a0d08d7aa633bce%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C1%7C637165215495875161&sdata=uDOvJSfAUjJEcd%2FU%2Fphs5D%2BJf%2F6GX%2BWTTYrmq%2BAa1PA%3D&reserved=0>

  *    Spreadsheet: http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/documents/final_punctuation_all_MARC_field.xlsx<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.loc.gov%2Faba%2Fpcc%2Fdocuments%2Ffinal_punctuation_all_MARC_field.xlsx&data=02%7C01%7Cfrancis.lapka%40yale.edu%7Cff51d3fcfa3a409a4a0d08d7aa633bce%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C1%7C637165215495885153&sdata=CacgaRtn1jJ1LwyvoWOTWMyFBAoR6CfA9FSZcqWds64%3D&reserved=0>

Phase 2: [Implementation date to be determined.] PCC libraries may begin to omit ISBD punctuation between subfields and terminal period of any descriptive field as long as Leader/18 is coded as “c”.

The implementation date for Phase 2 will depend on the following:

a. Completion of style guidelines containing instructions and examples

b. Completion of specifications for and availability of tools for automatically removing or adding punctuation (e.g., macros for OCLC Connexion Client, etc.)

Following these two phases, the Policy Committee will review the pros and cons of omitting final punctuation in access point fields.

The work on the limited use of the ISBD punctuation in PCC records began in March 2011. It took many groups’ work to get us to where we are now. I want to take this opportunity to express my sincere appreciation to anyone who has helped to make this happen.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Xiaoli Li

PCC Chair

Head of Content Support Services

UC Davis Library

(530) 752-6735

________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV<mailto:PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>> on behalf of Xiaoli Li <xlli at UCDAVIS.EDU<mailto:xlli at UCDAVIS.EDU>>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 12:16 PM
To: PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV<mailto:PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Subject: [PCCLIST] New policy regarding limited use of ISBD punctuation in bibliographic records

PCC colleagues,

At its recent meeting<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.loc.gov%2Faba%2Fpcc%2Fdocuments%2FPoCo-2018%2FPoCo-Agenda-2018.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Cfrancis.lapka%40yale.edu%7Cff51d3fcfa3a409a4a0d08d7aa633bce%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C1%7C637165215495885153&sdata=Sk%2BNcTBHoGHmq9U84b8PRqS752Y2t1ZNw48YHP1z4DU%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://nam05.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%7Cff51d3fcfa3a409a4a0d08d7aa633bce%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C1%7C637165215495895148&sdata=H2WYJ5WIThltTcztZfBeR%2Bitpq4FnvR4VTwaNCVLgZo%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

(530) 752-6735

________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV<mailto:PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>> on behalf of Lori Robare <lrobare at UOREGON.EDU<mailto:lrobare at UOREGON.EDU>>
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 3:08 PM
To: PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV<mailto:PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Subject: [PCCLIST] Testing use of limited ISBD punctuation in bibliographic records

Hi all,

Last spring it was announced that the PCC was moving forward to implement the recommendations of the PCC ISBD and MARC Task Group (Revised Final Report 2016<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.loc.gov%2Faba%2Fpcc%2Fdocuments%2Fisbdmarc2016.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Cfrancis.lapka%40yale.edu%7Cff51d3fcfa3a409a4a0d08d7aa633bce%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C1%7C637165215495895148&sdata=yYzu7CtzLd3GWAxcoQiX0tDuEE%2BGbcC1ar0ZnKSk7w8%3D&reserved=0>). The timeline called for a period of testing and outreach, but there were some delays in getting that started. Now we are ready!

Please see the attached announcement for details. The announcement is also available on the PCC website<https://nam05.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%7Cff51d3fcfa3a409a4a0d08d7aa633bce%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C1%7C637165215495905143&sdata=m%2Faxy2J0zyCpSA%2FGzEcOEIqB6b7fU3KUNel6u0bRzmc%3D&reserved=0>.

I would like to emphasize that the purpose of this test is to gather feedback about how bibliographic records with limited ISBD punctuation function in library systems and other applications, and to enable the PCC to make decisions about the feasibility of a policy change. This announcement will be shared widely so that libraries, vendors, and others who make use of MARC data are aware of the test.

The test will run through July 1, 2018. The announcement includes links to a website with sets of test records and to a survey for providing feedback.

Lori Robare

PCC Chair

University of Oregon Libraries

lrobare at uoregon.edu<mailto:lrobare at uoregon.edu>

--
Matthew C. Haugen
Rare Book Cataloger | Columbia University Libraries
matthew.haugen at columbia.edu<mailto:matthew.haugen at columbia.edu> | 212-851-2451 | he/him/his
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20200206/6f1bb314/attachment-0001.html>