Repurposing Appendix C: two proposals

 

DSG discussion, 2013-06-03 Archived discussion Re-purposing to contain the BSC statement on DCRM and RDA First e-mail from Jain Second e-mail from Jain Third e-mail from Jain Appendix C revised to contain the BSC statement on DCRM and RDA Re-purposing to provide guidance on AACR2 capitalization of elements Proposal from Erin to Steering Group conference call March 12, 2013 Response from Steering Group Appendix C revised to provide guidance on AACR2 capitalization of elements  Comments section

 

DSG discussion, 2013-06-03

 

• Some members felt very strongly that providing guidance to using RDA was not appropriate for a DCRM appendix.
• Everyone agreed that such guidance should be somewhere in DCRM
• A link with some contextual language should be provided instead of actual instructions
• There was some concern that putting the link in the introduction would bury it

• Finally agreed to add a third section to Introduction II, Relationship to other standards, at the same level as "MARC21" -- it will say something about how the relationship between DCRM and RDA is evolving, and current guidelines and other information can be found on the RBMS website at http://rbms.info/committees/bibliographic_standards/dcrm/rda/dcrm-rda.html

 

• We agreed that guidance on capitalization in this transition period was important and should be in a shared appendix
• On the question of why Appendix A is more important than Appendix B, and if we provide guidance for one shouldn't we also for the other. Consensus: since abbreviation isn't allowed in DCRM for transcribed text, we don't need guidance for that. And whether we supply a jurisdiction name spelled out or abbreviated (e.g., Pa. or PA or Pennsylvania] isn't significant enough to warrant providing guidance in DCRM
• On the suggestion that we use Appendix to give guidance on less-than-full records, we decided that Appendix D on minimal-level already existed, and if more guidance was wanted, it should go there

 

To do:

• Propose to BSC, via Jane, that Appendix C (which is currently blank in upcoming modules) be repurposed to provide guidance on AACR2 capitalization of elements, supplemented by some guidance in transcription that pose particular problems in rare materials cataloging, including conventions that are only illustrated by example in DCRM (e.g., our convention of, when transcribing signs as addresses, to make "sign of" lower case, but capitalize what the sign is, e.g., "at the sign of the Crown." Assuming BSC approves it, someone (Deborah and Erin together?) will whip the Appendix C that Erin pulled together into shape.

 

---

---

Archived discussion

 

Re-purposing to contain the BSC statement on DCRM and RDA

 

First e-mail from Jain

From: dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Fletcher, Jain
Sent: Monday, 29 April 2013 14:00
To: dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DCRM and RDA, updated guidance

 

Hi, everyone,

   It occurs to me that the statement (as below) on DCRM and RDA could work for Appendix C. The statement is current for now, as it stands, but as each manual is published, members of each manual’s editorial team should be updating the monographic “Rare RDA BSR” (or the “rare” parts of the RDA BSR, if that’s how it’s going to work) to add notes and guidance particular to their format. So, it seems to me that an additional statement to that effect could be added to the base statement in each manual’s App. C.

   I also believe that every editor of a DCRM manual should start visualizing how their manual will be changing if it is to follow DCRM(B)’s lead in making their compatible to RDA. Not that I want to be on the music team, but I really hope a good group can be put together to start that process as soon as DCRM(M) is “published”...                                  Thanks, Jain

 

Jain Fletcher
       Principal Cataloger & Head, Cataloging Section
Collection Management Division 
Library Special Collections

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Lapka, Francis
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 7:26 AM
To: dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu
Subject: [DCRM-L] DCRM and RDA, updated guidance

 

Dear DCRM-L colleagues,

 

Following up on discussion at Midwinter and questions from rare materials catalogers about DCRM/RDA issues, the DCRM(B) for RDA Revision Group, and Controlled Vocabularies Subcommittee, with the assistance of BSC web team liaison Randy Brandt, have updated the BSC page offering information on DCRM and RDA, accessible through the link below:

 

http://www.rbms.info/committees/bibliographic_standards/dcrm/rda/dcrm-rda.html

 

For your convenience, I’ve also copied the entire page to the end of this message.

 

The revised page provides guidance on various RDA issues, including:

·         how to properly employ DCRM(B) with AACR2 or RDA
·         how to employ DCRM(S), until the completion of the RDA CONSER standard record (CSR)
·         the use of relationship designators (in RDA)

 

The page also offers a summary of information about the DCRM(B) for RDA Revision Group.

 

All questions and comments are welcome.

 

Thanks,

Francis

 

Second e-mail from Jain

 

From Jain Fletcher (DCRM-L, 2013-03-11): https://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/2013-March/003095.html 

 

Hi, everyone,

   I mentioned over a week ago that I would be sending my proposal about re-purposing Appendix C to include information about how each format’s manual can be incorporated into the PCC’s RDA BSR for monographs. I have finally finished that 3-p. document and it is attached. My actual proposal, with rationale, can be found on the first page. But in case anyone wanted a refresher about what the original Appendix C plan had been or the “history” of PCC “floor standards”, I decided to give that info as well. (Incidentally,I included a link to the BSR for Rare Books final report from 2010, but if anyone wants the 1998 final report of the Rare Books Core standard TG or even the actual RB Core Std of 1999, you’ll need to ask me for them--they are no longer available on the PCC archived documents site--as far as I can tell.)

   I think there is still much to decide about how we are going to be turning our DCRM guidelines into RDA compatibility/compliance (and what will be happening to the AACR2-compatible DCRMs), but that is another discussion that we should be having along the way. But for now, I think we may need to discuss this issue.  I will be very interested to see what people think.

                                                                        Thanks, Jain

 

Attachment:

 

PCC “Floor Standards” and the RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee

An Introduction by Jain Fletcher

 

At ALA Midwinter 2013 in Seattle, I proposed to the Bibliographic Standards Committee (BSC) that the as-yet-unpublished format manuals consider the idea of re-purposing Appendix C to give information about the latest “floor” standard that has emanated from the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC)--the BIBCO Standard Record (BSR) aligned with RDA. The renewed purpose of the Appendix would be to explain that BSC is now in the process of moving its DCRM guidelines towards alignment with RDA. It would also explain that, in the interim, the current AACR2-based DCRM format standards could be aligned with RDA through use of the RDA BSR for Rare Materials. An added benefit behind this plan would be that it can apprise people who do not normally catalog rare material about DCRM’s progress towards RDA and also about the existence of its interim “floor standard” in alignment with both RDA and DCRM.

 

The idea of using Appendix C for this information is based on its natural connection to PCC, although this fact will not be apparent to most (not that that matters). Many people do not know, and some may have forgotten, that Appendix C was one of 8 appendices (A-G) that were designated by the DCRM editors to hold the same exact information throughout the DCRM manuals.  Appendix C was to be the place to carry information about “Core” records, the original PCC-devised “floor” standard (“C” being a mnemonic for “Core”). The Appendix was intended to explain how “Core” related to the format addressed within the particular DCRM manual. Unfortunately, we had not considered this idea as carefully as we could have, since the truth is that the DCRB Core Standard (aka “Rare Books Core”) had only been devised for books; none of the other DCRM format manuals have an existing rare “floor” standard to refer to from that Appendix. This has meant that every subsequent DCRM manual has been constrained to use “template text” to the effect that “No general use of this Appendix is made for [format].”  So, another reason to re-purpose Appendix C is to give the other manuals a new way to use this currently unexploited space. Considering the importance of the DCRM’s progress towards RDA, I believe that this waste of space is something we cannot afford. Instead, we should think of it as an opportunity to communicate our plans and progress.

 

The RDA BSR for Rare Materials Task Group deliberately used the term “Materials” instead of “Books” as a pathway for bringing the non-book guidelines into the MAP; this measure meant that it could act as the interim RDA solution for all of the DCRMs. The idea was that, as each new non-book rare cataloging manual was published, decisions could be made about how each of them would be integrated into the RDA BSR for Rare Materials guidelines. Of course, to do so, each format will need to be in contact with PCC and its modern and rare counterpart constituencies for input, ideas and readings; finally, each will need formal approval from PCC in order to be added to that MAP. I am sure that we will all succeed when that time comes.

 

A perfect case to the point above is the fact that a small PCC- and BSC-approved TG is currently working on adding rare serials guidelines to the CONSER RDA Core Elements standards (basically the equivalent to the RDA BIBCO Standard Record, to which DCRM Books now belongs). After it undergoes review and revision, it will no doubt be approved. At that point, if the DCRM Serials were to be revised, its Appendix C would no longer have template text, but would instead provide information about the inclusion of rare serials guidelines to the CONSER RDA Core Elements standard, as an interim step towards creating an RDA-aligned DCRM for Serials.

 

My proposal is that the DCRM Steering Group devise a single page of text for the re-purposed Appendix C with a view towards laying out BSC’s RDA plans. If there is space, the text can also act as an update on efforts of BSC to create an updated, fully RDA-compliant set of manuals.

 

=============================================================== ==============================================

For those unfamiliar or hazy about the trajectory of the PCC-devised standards and how they relate to the trajectory of the BSC cataloging rules, some background is provided below, to help them decide if they think this is a good idea.

 

===PCC===

The development of the Core record in the mid-1990s represented a sea change in the cataloging world. The emerging capabilities of the internet offered the originators an unprecedented opportunity to hold a national “conversation” about how to address ever-mounting backlogs and concerns over the excessive time it was taking to catalog books. The idea that grew out of the movement was the creation of a standard that would represent a “floor” level of the fields needed to create an appropriate record for most situations. This was called a “Core” record. This concept was juxtaposed against a “Full” record, which was intended to cover situations where an exceptional item or an institutional requirement that every single potential field appropriate to every item be included in their records. The “Core” record was intended to be a significantly higher standard than a minimal record, since it not only had definitive requirements for the descriptive fields to be included, it also had requirements for the appropriate amount of access fields to be included. Furthermore, for “Core” records created by PCC libraries, all of the access points had to be represented by a Library of Congress authority record. The “Core” standard was not intended just for catalogers from PCC libraries, it was encouraged for use for all catalogers. However, only those records coded as “PCC” were required to follow the standard to the fullest; all others could only be encouraged to follow the full extent of the standard.

 

It should be mentioned here that the original impetus for the development of the “Core” standard was books; it is unclear if the initiative was ever envisioned to cover non-book material. However, soon after the “Full” and “Core” standards were implemented, constituencies representing non-book formats began to agitate to devise their own format-related “Core” standards. So, even while the new standard was being rolled out for books, non-book standards were at various stages of being devised. However, it was only when I represented UCLA at the first BIBCO “Train the Trainer” meeting at the Library of Congress that I realized there might be a problem for rare books if libraries adopted the regular “Core” standard to move all their books—including very old ones—from their backlogs to the shelves.

 

===BSC===

At the next ALA following the “Train the Trainer” meeting (ALA Annual 1996), I proposed to the BSC that we develop a “Core” record for rare books, with a joint task group comprised of PCC and BSC members. To telescope the story, the idea was accepted, a stellar joint task group was appointed and the work began. It is important to remember that, at that time, the only standard that the Task Group had to work with was Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Books. The non-book format standards covered in the DCRMs were years away from being proposed, and even further away from being realized. So, when the “DCRB Core Standard” was approved in late 1998, it was aligned, as its name implies, with Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Books. 

 

BSC moved on with its own standards initiatives and, in the late 1990s, decided to revise DCRB. However, with this revision, BSC decided to expand its guidelines to incorporate other rare materials along with books. Of those standards, DCRM Books was published in 2007 and DCRM Serials in 2008.  All the other non-book formats have continued with their work, which includes ascertaining how some of the basic DCRM Books guidelines can be adopted for their formats and, even more important, where those guidelines need to be adapted to be more appropriate for specific formats. The main point to make here is that, despite the fact that the non-book standards for rare materials have been in existence (in the “periphery” so to speak) for some time, none of them may actually be applied until each has been approved for publication.

 

===PCC===

Everyone expected that the Core Standard would continue to exist as a high standard response to minimal-level cataloging. However, PCC surprised just about everyone in late 2009 by introducing plans for “merging” of the “Full” and “Core” standards into a BIBCO Standard Record (or, BSR). This standard was intended to meet somewhere in between “Full” and “Core” to become the only “floor” standard available. Since PCC took over ownership of each “Core” standard after it had been devised by its non-book constituency, there was no arguing against this decision. Fortunately, PCC was in contact with the appropriate constituencies to ascertain their input for developing this new standard. 

 

===BSC===

Well, almost--PCC never contacted the rare materials standards community. Even though the DCRB Core Joint Task Group had requested that RBMS BSC be contacted if substantive changes were being considered to the “Core” standard, its request had been made over 10 years prior and (perhaps understandably) had been forgotten. It was up to 2 members of that original Task Group (Bob Maxwell and me) to bring our concerns about this situation to Stephen Skuce, then Chair of BSC, to urge that he contact PCC to rectify that oversight. Again, to telescope the story, Stephen Skuce got rare books on PCC’s “radar” in time for them to “contact us” for our input before MidWinter 2010. In discussing it at MidWinter, BSC agreed that this was an important initiative to take on, so a Task Group was formed. Because the BIBCO Standard Record MAP for all the other formats was almost ready, PCC gave the TG on the BSR for Rare Books until just the end of February 2010 for a draft, with a goal of April 1 for implementation. Doing its work between the two ALAs meant the TG needed to be in contact with BSC over e-mail for comments and votes; still, the Rare BSR Task Group did its work in record time. Its proposed standard was approved by BSC in May 2010 and the standard was forwarded to PCC.  (Final report: <http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/bibco/documents/BSRRB-Final-Report.pdf>)

 

It may be worth adding a final note that “DCRB Core” and the “BSR for Rare Books” were each carefully aligned with their then-current published standards for rare book cataloging, the first being DCRB and the next being DCRM(B). As well, users of each floor standard were directed to a specific rulebook to be the basis for their use and comprehension of each floor standard. In the case of the “DCRB Core” standard, the TG also named BDRB as not being appropriate for use, since it had been fairly recently superseded by the substantially revised DCRB.

 

Third e-mail from Jain

 

From DJL 2013-05-13:

As you can see, Jain has decided to drop in her proposal about repurposing of Appendix C in the close reading text. This was discussed at the BSC meeting, where it didn't meet with much approval, but no vote was taken and this steering group was created to handle such questions. http://connect.ala.org/node/200919

 

In our videomeeting of 2013-02-12, we decided to repurpose Appendix C to include instructions for capitalization of elements. http://dcrmsteeringgroup.pbworks.com/w/page/63621877/20130212%20Issue%204, http://dcrmsteeringgroup.pbworks.com/w/page/63636219/20130212%20Issue%204%20-%20results

 

We don't yet have an agreed-upon mechanism for our group to approve changes, &c., although Erin is working on a draft as I write. We can, however, consider Jain's proposal with the other plan, attached. We can pursue the two discussions--the mechanism for approving changes and Appendix C--simultaneously.

 

From: Fletcher, Jain [mailto:jfletchr@library.ucla.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, 15 May 2013 12:16
To: Deborah J. Leslie
Subject: Sending to you as Chair of DPC St. Cte
Importance: High

 

Hi, Deborah,

   I have been prepping our DCRM(Music) for a close reading, so I have been working on a few nitty-gritty details in the last week or so. One of those details was a recent idea I came up with to “adopt/adapt” the BSC official position on RDA for rare materials as substitute wording for AppC. I thought that was kind of great idea, since it is BSC official wording and it also does what I would like it to do: make sure it’s clear within the existing DCRM(M) that the DCRMs are moving towards adding an RDA “platform” for the rules. (Basically, sort of a “watch this space”-kinda thing.)

   I had only conceived of this idea and kind of sketched it out before now--until last night, when I went ahead and just put it in the DCRM(M) version that we are sending out for a close reading. Believe me, I do understand that what I put there is just a suggestion and even if the Steering Cte agrees with this idea in general, they may still wish for  it to be worded differently.

   So, the attached document is just a “clip” from the full DCRM(Music) that is now in Audrey Pearson’s hands--and I think will be made available as early as today, possibly tomorrow (I still have the close reading “guidelines” to write, and we have a Big Event here today that I’m involved in, sooooo...). Much like the way Erin set up Graphics’ close reading, I will be pointing to it and asking for comments about it. However, the obvious set of people who should be looking at this new idea for AppC is the DPC Steering Cte, which is why I am sending it to you. I don’t know if you want them to see this outside the context of DCRM(M) or just wait up to another day for them to see it in place.  I just thought I’d let you know, so you could decide.

                                                                                                                                Thanks, Jain

Jain Fletcher
Principal Cataloger & Head, Cataloging Section
Collection Management Division 
Library Special Collections
Young Research Library - UCLA Box 951575
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1575

v: (310) 794-4096
f: (310) 206-1864
e: jfletchr@library.ucla.edu

 

Appendix C revised to contain the BSC statement on DCRM and RDA

 

AppC_NewWording.docx

---

 

Re-purposing to provide guidance on AACR2 capitalization of elements

 

Proposal from Erin to Steering Group conference call March 12, 2013

Add instructions for capitalization of elements, parallel with instructions for ISBD punctuation
Background: DCRM re‐states AACR2's extremely precise instructions for ISBD punctuation, but not
AACR2's extremely precise instructions for capitalization of elements, or even a reference to where
these instructions can be found in AACR2. (Just where to go for instructions on capitalization when
converting case)

 

• AACR2 is all over the place; you can't just say "start every element with x unless otherwise instructed by the rules for the language involved."
• Graphic Materials included a reminder to begin area 5 with a lower‐case letter because people are used to beginning it with a numeral, and used to beginning other areas with an upper‐case letter, so it’s hard to remember to  write “ca. 250 items” instead of “Ca. 250 items”
• With AACR2 no longer current, it’s helpful to provide this information up front, alongside prescribed punctuation.
• Alternatives:
• Provide instructions that follow AACR2
• Provide instructions that follow ISBD (generally, but not always, the same as AACR2. E.g., AACR2 starts the GMD lower case, ISBD starts it upper case)
• Provide instructions that follow RDA (super‐easy: start each element with a capital letter)

 

Response from Steering Group

Yes, provide AACR2 instructions in a succinct form in place of the now-defunct Appendix C. Form and wording to be decided.

 

Appendix C revised to provide guidance on AACR2 capitalization of elements 

 

Appendix C Capitalization v1.doc

Errata: 

• Add comma after "etc." in C4 heading
• Graphic materials example for C1.2 found: --where often you and I upon faint primrose-buds were wont to lie, emptying our bosoms of their counsel sweet

 

Comments section