[DCRM-L] RDA Edition news + Using RDA extent terms for DCRM-G specific material designation terms

[Glenn Wells]

Thank you Erin and Elizabeth for responding.

Erin, I take your point about there being a reason to deliberately limit
extent terms, it's definitely efficient and correct to use standard terms
to indicate extent. However, 'Extent' is primarily an element of
descriptive cataloguing. Consequently, most systems incorporate additional
and controlled ways of gathering alike materials into
lowest-common-denominator material type groups (MARC control fields,
thesauri etc.). Regardless, I mentioned RDA terms because RDA instructs
cataloguers to select a term from the list of Carrier Types or Carrier
Extent Units when recording extent (for a 'Structured Description
<https://access.rdatoolkit.org/en-US_ala-8754c7a9-c38c-3735-9cf9-865df717f81b/66040d3f-a52f-4fe5-b6af-eef753aec183>);
these terms are incorporated within the RDA vocabulary encoding scheme. I'd
argue that DCMR-G extent terms are too limited. For example, if you're
cataloguing a rare postcard, that's not photographic in nature, I can't see
a clear way of indicating the item-in-hand using the extent field or the
physical characteristics field when cataloguing to DCRM-G. The only option
appears to be to whack 'postcard format' at the end of the dimensions
field, the same can be said of posters; this seems a bit funky to me.

Elizabeth, thank you for taking the time to respond to me, it's great to
hear that work is continuing. I've been working with the BSR RDA MAP, which
is among the reasons I posted my question on the list.  At the moment, the
BSR RDA MAP points back to DCRM-G for rare materials for instructions on
recording extent. So, despite the fact that there appears a thorough
encoding scheme supporting the additional terms available when cataloguing
to RDA, the DCRM-G cataloguer is still directed back to the same 4-6 extent
terms.I think the more likely result of this continuing in an update to
DCRM-G is that catalogers will apply local exceptions to the standard, or
continue apply the last-resort options 'Item' and 'picture'. That said,
perhaps I'm just missing the point of the BSR-RDA-MAP and am imagining
scenarios that would not really apply 'rare' cataloguing (20th century
posters).

Thanks again,
Glenn


On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 2:51 AM Erin Blake <erin.blake.folger at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Taking up the DCRM(G) part of Glen's question, I think that adding RDA
> carrier types to the prescribed list in DCRM(G) 5B2.1 would be conflating
> what the item-in-hand "is" (a graphic of some sort), which is the first
> part of the statement, and what it is "on" (a carrier of some sort), which
> is the second part of the statement.[Note: I'm not saying that this
> distinction is a good thing, just that it's a thing.... It lets the user
> know about how many pictures they'll get if they call up what's described
> in the record; it does this at the expense of letting the repository add up
> all the numbers in the 300$a to figure out how many shelves are needed].
>
> The prescribed list of what the graphic "is" is deliberately short, to
> ensure a lowest-common-denominator of terminology.
>
>   *5B2.1.* Choose a term from the list below for the specific material
> designation. If considered important, give further description in other
> physical details (see 5C) and in the note area.
>
>
>    - drawing(s)
>    - painting(s)
>    - photograph(s)
>    - print(s)
>
> Or, as a last resort
>
>
>    - item(s)
>    - picture(s)
>
> RDA carrier terms can then be added to the statement. There are a couple
> of ways to do that: by expanding the first element (e.g. "21 pictures in 2
> volumes" or "ca. 10 drawings on 1 sheet", see 5B4), and by expanding the
> "Other physical details" in the second element (see 5C, "Details recorded
> in this element may include medium, primary and secondary supports,
> photographic form (e.g., print, transparency), and color)".
>
> Of course, that can lead to despair when you don't really know what you've
> got, or how to count it pictorially.... that's where "ca." and "items" are
> the last resort.
>
> Erin.
>
>
> ______________________
> Erin Blake, Ph.D.  |  Senior Cataloger  |  Folger Shakespeare Library  |
> 201 E. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC, 20003  |  eblake at folger.edu  |
> www.folger.edu
> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/-t5RCjRgpBtArRXC7R7_2?domain=urldefense.com>
>   |  Pronouns: she/her/hers
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 5:02 PM Glenn Wells <gwellsrbcourse at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Now that the RDA 3-R Project has been completed, is there any news on
>> when the DCRM (RDA Edition) is likely to be completed? Apologies if this
>> has already been asked.
>>
>> Also, of DCRM-G, does anyone have an opinion on whether the prescribed
>> specific material designation terms (see DCRM-G 5B2.1) should be expanded
>> to include RDA carrier types and RDA extent units?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Glenn Wells
>>
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20210129/ff21bff2/attachment.htm>