Standards Committee, 15 June This report fulfills item 1 of the Task Force s charge:

Transcription

1 Draft report of the DCRM/RDA Task Force, presented to the RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee, 15 June 2012 This report fulfills item 1 of the Task Force s charge: Submit a report containing an expanded, more in depth analysis of the issues and options presented in the Attig/Maxwell discussion paper, along with recommendations for next steps by BSC. The Task Force, whose initial membership of Deborah J. Leslie and Catherine Uecker with John Attig, was expanded to include representatives from each of the DCRM modules: Randal S. Brandt (Cartographic, Serials), Ann Copeland (Serials), Nancy Lorimer (Music), Mary Mundy (Graphics), Elizabeth O Keefe (Manuscripts), with Attig and Leslie representing Books. This enlarged task force engaged in several videoconferences (using join.me and Skype) February through May We were joined on these occasions by Francis Lapka, who, along with Lori Dekydtspotter, will be moderating the BSC sponsored Discussion Session on DCRM and RDA at the 2012 Preconference in San Diego entitled The Future of Rare Materials Cataloging Standards: Can DCRM and RDA Get Along? We realize that the Task Force report was expected to provide more in depth analysis of the issues and offer firmer recommendations than it does. Once the Task Force was reformed into a larger group, we were able to discuss the major differences and problems introduced by the adoption of RDA, come to a consensus on most but not all of them, and realized that we needed active input by the larger community before going any further. We look forward to the preconference Discussion Session and the BSC meeting to provide indispensable guidance to the Task Force. 1. Overall Relationship Between DCRM and RDA 1.1. The Task Force agreed early in its discussions that RDA would replace AACR2 as the basis for DCRM, specifically, following Attig/Maxwell Option 2 (RDA as the basis for specific DCRM provisions, but with a continued organization by ISBD area) < DP pdf>. However, the Cartographic group has recently made an argument for the adoption of Option 1 (RDA as the basis for DCRM/RDA Task Force 18 June 2012 p. 1 of 6

2 all aspects of DCRM, including organization), and the Task Force considers this an open question. See more discussion at item The manuals currently under development will continue to be developed and published using the current DCRM standard: do not deviate from AACR2 unless there is a rare material reason to deviate; do not deviate from the published DCRM manuals unless there is a format specific reason to deviate. This stance was chosen as the most prudent course of action as best practices and application guidelines are developed and published. 2. RDA and the published DCRM manuals 2.1. The Task Force began by considering what immediate accommodation, if any, should be made to RDA in the use of the two published manuals, DCRM(Books) and DCRM(Serials). The result was this statement: < In essence, the recommendation is to preserve the integrity of descriptions based on these published manuals, so that records coded 040 dcrmb or dcrms follow the manuals as published, without incorporating any non allowed elements or practices of RDA into these descriptions. A distinction is made between the description and the rest of the bibliographic record, of which the latter is not covered by DCRM. Since the coding in the 040 relates specifically to the descriptive conventions used in the record; there is therefore no conflict between use of DCRM descriptive areas combined with RDA or any other sources or codes for non descriptive portions. Implicit in the statement is that descriptions based on RDA, using DCRM elements or practices as allowed by RDA, should be coded rda. There is, at present, no circumstance in which a record may be coded both dcrm and rda The Task Force will investigate ways to accommodate certain RDA elements and practices into Books or Serials records before full revisions of these manuals have been undertaken, based on the method discussed in item RDA and the DCRM manuals in development 3.1. RDA alternatives DCRM/RDA Task Force 18 June 2012 p. 2 of 6

3 Graphics and Music have developed RDA alternatives for certain elements. The Music Library Association is currently writing an RDA best practices document Manuscripts and Maps have not developed RDA alternatives, but are further away from publishing their modules and also have to take into consideration other cataloging standards for their materials Format of RDA alternatives Because of concerns about DCRM being in sync with changes to RDA, those generated by ongoing edits by the Joint Steering Committee as well as policy statements by LC and/or the PCC, this Task Force recommends that published versions of the manuals currently in development not contain RDA alternatives within the text, but that they be made easily and readily available to users of those manuals. For the Cataloger s Desktop version, Bruce Johnson has agreed that some mechanism, such as the pop up notes currently used Books and Serials for footnotes or to indicate LC local policy, could be incorporated. Hardcopy versions would include a URL leading to a BSC site that would provide RDA alternatives 4. The New DCRM: future revisions of DCRM manuals The continued primary purpose of DCRM is to provide guidance to catalogers of rare materials in libraries Relationships to other standards Relationship to RDA RDA guidelines and instructions will provide the normative basis for all new revisions of DCRM manuals, deviating only as required for the particular descriptive needs of rare materials. RDA will provide guidelines and instructions for choice and formulation of access points and other aspects of the cataloging record not covered by DCRM. RDA terminology will be adopted, although the question about whether specific language of RDA instructions will also become normative for DCRM is open; more discussion at item Relationship to AACR2 AACR2 will be superseded as the basis for descriptive instructions as well DCRM/RDA Task Force 18 June 2012 p. 3 of 6

4 as for formulating access points. Insofar as existing DCRM practices not contradicted by RDA, and current DCRM language, are carried into the New DCRM, echoes of AACR2 will persist but will not be binding as such, and like ISBD(A), be considered an informational resource Relationship to ISBD(A) Since ISBD(A) ) has been subsumed into the consolidated ISBD, a formal relationship must needs be severed, although ISBD may be useful as an informational resource Major differences in description Transcription RDA transcription instructions are much closer to DCRM than were AACR2ʹs. The only real issue of significance is RDAʹs treatment of misprints and of fictitious or incorrect information. The Task Force explored the issues involved, both from the point of view of DCRM in general as well as from that of the needs of the different modules, recognizing that a thorough consideration by the community is imperative Misprints (unintentional compositorial mistakes). RDA calls for transcribing as is from the resource, making no indication or corrections of misprints, although a note may be made if considered important for identification or access. Although not solely a rare materials issue, the increased incidence of misprints in early materials, the utility of these misprints in identifying manifestations, and the importance of confirmation that the misprint was not introduced by the cataloger, make this an issue of particular concern. Within the context of bibliographic records, making a note on the misprint, along with variant title access for misprints in the title, will satisfy the needs of identification and access for rare materials, and although less convenient than use of i.e. and sic, would probably be acceptable, and would be an appropriate good faith gesture of our desire to align DCRM with RDA as much as possible. DCRM/RDA Task Force 18 June 2012 p. 4 of 6

5 Misprints in publication dates, however, are not usually apparent as such. Given the prime status of dates in identifying manifestations and in online catalog indexing, leaving misprinted dates unacknowledged except in a note is likely to seriously mislead users of catalog records, researchers as well as library staff Incorrect or fictitious information (unintentional or intentional). DCRM calls for correct information to also be provided within the field in Area 4 when the transcribed information is incorrect or fictitious. The same argument about misprinted dates holds here: the probability of increased confusion rather than increased clarity is likely to result if false imprints and the like are to be left unacknowledged and uncorrected in the field An additional difficulty of relying on notes for misprints or incorrect information arises from re use of bibliographic data, for example, the harvesting of elements from the bibliographic record for image databases. If misprinted or incorrect titles are disconnected from their original context, again, the description may serve to unnecessarily create confusion and error. One promising solution is an increased use of devised titles when the information is flat out wrong (for example, a misidentification of a building in a photograph) Statement of extent The Task Force approved the proposed policy statement under consideration by the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC): Add a policy statement (labeled ʺPCC practiceʺ) for the ʺExceptionsʺ for early printed resources in The policy statement would specify use of Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (DCRM) conventions when recording extent for early printed resources, thereby allowing the use of square brackets for unnumbered sequences Abbreviations RDA allows for continuing to expand Latin abbreviations based on manuscript annotations and ligatures, which agrees with DCRM DCRM/RDA Task Force 18 June 2012 p. 5 of 6

6 4.5. Fields 336, 337 and 338 These could be incorporated into DCRM cataloging easily. There may be a need to propose more elements that are compatible with DCRM cataloging. 5. Options for constructing the New DCRM 5.1. Approaches to revision Creation of an RDA based ur DCRM a DCRM deprived of all formatspecific instructions. This approach has a lot of appeal, but there is a question of how much work will be required to create something that in itself will never be published, and whether that s the best use of our time and labor Revise DCRM(B) according to RDA; use Books as basis for revising the other manuals 5.2. Approaches to organization Perpetuate organization by ISBD area Follow RDA organization 5.3. Approaches to methodology Use DCRM as the base text, revising DCRM language only as needed to comply with RDA provisions. This methodology would be appropriate if the new DCRM will be organized by ISBD area Use RDA as the base text, revising RDA language only as needed to comply with DCRM provisions. This methodology would be appropriate if organizing the new DCRM by RDA sections Respectfully submitted, Deborah J. Leslie Catherine Uecker DCRM/RDA Task Force 18 June 2012 p. 6 of 6