DCRM(B) status report

From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Thu May 1 17:35:43 2003 From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Karen Spicher) Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 12:35:43 -0400 Subject: [DCRB-L] WG4: Draft appendix on collection-level cataloging In-Reply-To: <88539F4A9A5C3041B06A234AA2ABDB5801766073@portia.folger.edu > Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20030501102836.00af98f0@spicher.mail.yale.edu> I have a few comments on the Collection-Level Cataloging appendix, which I think overall is very good. Since I was not in the meetings at the conference, maybe some of these points have already been discussed, but these are the things that stood out to me in reading the draft:

D.a) 1XX field: Main entry heading.
I think this would be clearer if the second example, 110 Austria, was moved up under the first paragraph.

D.f) 351 field
Second example should use |b, for arrangement of items, rather than |a, which is for organization of series.

D.h) 5XX fields

5) 505 field: "Assign a number on each item...and write it on each item." Would be good to specify: "...and write it on each item in pencil in an area not obscuring text."

540, Terms Governing Use and Reproduction, could be added, eg for notes about copyright or about physical restrictions on reproduction of fragile materials.

I also noticed a few typos:

Section D, first paragraph: remove italics from "supplemented by use of ".

D.h)4). 520 field
"A summary note may be used in addition to or in lieu of a 505 contents note" appears twice in this paragraph. I think the first one should be deleted and leave as third sentence.

D.k) 856 field
Add space: "prepared for the collection or"

Karen

Karen Spicher
Archivist
Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library
Yale University

At 02:56 PM 4/7/2003 -0400, you wrote:

Dear colleagues:

Working Group 4 is ready to submit their draft for a new appendix to DCRM(B) treating collection-level cataloging of rare printed books. Everyone's comments, questions, suggestions, welcome.

http://www.folger.edu/bsc/dcrb/wg4jd030407.doc

___________________________
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
Head of Cataloging
Folger Shakespeare Library
201 East Capitol St., S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003
202.675-0369 (p)
202.675-0328 (f)
djleslie@folger.edu
www.folger.edu

From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Thu May 1 19:33:53 2003 From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (jones barbara) Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 13:33:53 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [DCRB-L] Classification numbers Message-ID: Colleagues: As a lapsed cataloger who has forgotten much of the theoretical underpinnings, I would very much appreciate your opinions, local practices, or references to articles on the following question: Why do we assign classification numbers in books in a closed stack such as a rare book library? Do your libraries assign them? I am not referring to named collections here. I would appreciate practical as well as theoretical reasons. I miss the good times we had in New Haven. Best wishes, Barbara Jones From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Thu May 1 20:14:35 2003 From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Deborah J. Leslie) Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 15:14:35 -0400 Subject: [DCRB-L] Classification numbers Message-ID: <88539F4A9A5C3041B06A234AA2ABDB580176617A@portia.folger.edu> DDC, LC, and other classification systems that I know of are all subject classifications, specifically designed to facilitate reader browsing. When stacks are closed and browsing is not permitted, the primary goal of subject classification is not present. And since subject classification does require time on the cataloger's part to apply, and has shelving disadvantages as well, many rare book repositories (such as the Folger) keep most of their rare books in accession number order. There is an advantage to subject classification for closed stacks, which is the browsing possible by shelfmark in online library systems. It's a matter of effort vs. benefit. In a closed stack, the benefits don't come close to justifying the efforts. ___________________________ Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. Head of Cataloging Folger Shakespeare Library 201 East Capitol St., S.E. Washington, D.C. 20003 202.675-0369 (p) 202.675-0328 (f) djleslie@folger.edu www.folger.edu -----Original Message----- From: jones barbara [mailto:jones5@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 2:34 PM To: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Subject: [DCRB-L] Classification numbers Colleagues: As a lapsed cataloger who has forgotten much of the theoretical underpinnings, I would very much appreciate your opinions, local practices, or references to articles on the following question: Why do we assign classification numbers in books in a closed stack such as a rare book library? Do your libraries assign them? I am not referring to named collections here. I would appreciate practical as well as theoretical reasons. I miss the good times we had in New Haven. Best wishes, Barbara Jones From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Thu May 1 20:39:15 2003 From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Jane Gillis) Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 15:39:15 -0400 Subject: [DCRB-L] Classification numbers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030501145951.03dcd308@jgillis.mail.yale.edu> --=====================_285127281==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed I can tell you about the classification schemes in Beinecke Library, a closed stack library. Up until about 1970, everything was classed using the "Yale Classification" scheme, a pre LC classification. Some collections are still classed in that classification (e.g., Yale Collection of American Literature in Za; Western Americana in Zc; Yale Collection of German Literature in Zg). What is important about these is that the schemes are based on the first edition and all other printings, editions of a work class together. The Za and Zg are author based. Zc had a one to one correspondence with subject headings. In the old card catalog, there would be a "see/see also" card from the subject heading to the classification. The shelf cards were in the public catalog. Curators (and others) could look at the cards and see what exactly Beinecke had, which is probably the reason why these classifications were kept. We have many "name" collections--usually the collector/donor, etc.--with a scheme following that is either numerical (e.g., Baskin 1, Baskin 2, etc.) or Cuttered (Marinetti Ad67). We also have a large collection of "tracts" (American Tracts, British Tracts, European Tracts, Latin American Tracts) that are classed by country and then by date. Our general collection now gets Year/Number Call Numbers (2003 1, 2003 2, etc; 2003 Folio S1, 2003 Folio S2, etc., etc.) Broadsides get a variation of this scheme. We also have many bound pamphlet collections (College Pamphlets, Plays, Slaver Pamphlets, etc.) We stopped the "Yale Classification" because the Yale Library was stopping it moving to LC Classification. It was decided at that point that since the library was closed stacks, we would assign the very easy Year/Number. There were several reasons for this: it saves a tremendous amount of time (which translates into more books cataloged); books in the old "Yale Classification" that were not going to be added to, as well as the new Year/Number, could be compacted on the shelves--more books fit on the shelves and there is less shifting. The downside of this is that when a reader comes in and is looking for a specific subject, title, author, etc., the materials can be all over the place--different floors, etc. and it makes the paging more difficult. Hope this is what you are looking for. Jane Gillis We continued to class for those collections that it really made sense, and that the curators wanted. At 01:33 PM 5/1/2003 Thursday-0500, you wrote: >Colleagues: As a lapsed cataloger who has forgotten much of the >theoretical underpinnings, I would very much appreciate your opinions, >local practices, or references to articles on the following question: > >Why do we assign classification numbers in books in a closed stack such as >a rare book library? Do your libraries assign them? I am not referring >to named collections here. > >I would appreciate practical as well as theoretical reasons. > >I miss the good times we had in New Haven. Best wishes, Barbara Jones Jane Gillis | Rare Book Cataloger| Sterling Memorial Library Yale University | New Haven CT 06520 (203)432-2633 (voice) | (203)432-4047 (fax) | jane.gillis@yale.edu --=====================_285127281==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" I can tell you about the classification schemes in Beinecke Library, a closed stack library.

Up until about 1970, everything was classed using the "Yale Classification" scheme, a pre LC classification. Some collections are still classed in that classification (e.g., Yale Collection of American Literature in Za; Western Americana in Zc; Yale Collection of German Literature in Zg). What is important about these is that the schemes are based on the first edition and all other printings, editions of a work class together. The Za and Zg are author based. Zc had a one to one correspondence with subject headings. In the old card catalog, there would be a "see/see also" card from the subject heading to the classification. The shelf cards were in the public catalog. Curators (and others) could look at the cards and see what exactly Beinecke had, which is probably the reason why these classifications were kept.

We have many "name" collections--usually the collector/donor, etc.--with a scheme following that is either numerical (e.g., Baskin 1, Baskin 2, etc.) or Cuttered (Marinetti Ad67). We also have a large collection of "tracts" (American Tracts, British Tracts, European Tracts, Latin American Tracts) that are classed by country and then by date. Our general collection now gets Year/Number Call Numbers (2003 1, 2003 2, etc; 2003 Folio S1, 2003 Folio S2, etc., etc.) Broadsides get a variation of this scheme. We also have many bound pamphlet collections (College Pamphlets, Plays, Slaver Pamphlets, etc.)

We stopped the "Yale Classification" because the Yale Library was stopping it moving to LC Classification. It was decided at that point that since the library was closed stacks, we would assign the very easy Year/Number. There were several reasons for this: it saves a tremendous amount of time (which translates into more books cataloged); books in the old "Yale Classification" that were not going to be added to, as well as the new Year/Number, could be compacted on the shelves--more books fit on the shelves and there is less shifting. The downside of this is that when a reader comes in and is looking for a specific subject, title, author, etc., the materials can be all over the place--different floors, etc. and it makes the paging more difficult.

Hope this is what you are looking for.

Jane Gillis

We continued to class for those collections that it really made sense, and that the curators wanted.

At 01:33 PM 5/1/2003 Thursday-0500, you wrote:

Colleagues: As a lapsed cataloger who has forgotten much of the
theoretical underpinnings, I would very much appreciate your opinions,
local practices, or references to articles on the following question:

Why do we assign classification numbers in books in a closed stack such as
a rare book library? Do your libraries assign them? I am not referring
to named collections here.

I would appreciate practical as well as theoretical reasons.

I miss the good times we had in New Haven. Best wishes, Barbara Jones

Jane Gillis | Rare Book Cataloger| Sterling Memorial Library
Yale University | New Haven CT 06520
(203)432-2633 (voice) | (203)432-4047 (fax) | jane.gillis@yale.edu
--=====================_285127281==_.ALT-- From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Fri May 2 01:28:24 2003 From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Laurence Creider) Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 18:28:24 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [DCRB-L] Classification numbers In-Reply-To: <88539F4A9A5C3041B06A234AA2ABDB580176617A@portia.folger.edu> Message-ID: I missed the initial post on this, but while Deborah and Jane make some good points, I think that an argument can be made for classifying such materials using a subject classification. It all depends on the nature of the rare materials collection and its relationship to other libraries. For example, if the materials in the rare collection are chiefly early imprints or examples of fine printing, the use of subject classification is less helpful than if the materials consist of focused collections on, say the history of science or liturgical history. Scientific and "social science" materials published before the latter part of the 18th century even in the early 19th century are often so general that classification is virtually useless. You end up with 150 books on Natural History--Early works to 1800, or the early 18th century economic pamphlets that discuss how to solve English economic problems concerning the national debt, trade, Irish imports, etc., all within 30 pages. Similarly, if you have a large number of different classifications in use in your collections and no intention of ever reclassifying to one system, you might as well choose something that will be as of little cost to your staff as possible. Your staff and patrons will have to develop other ways to retrieve materials on similar subjects. On the other hand, if you have extensive collections in history that are are dovetail nicely with the holdings in the general collection, use of a subject classification can help your researchers (including students) and significantly increase the use of your holdings as people learn that a call number browse is worth doing. Likewise, if you have multiple departmental libraries, as we did at Penn, the virtual shelf list can be quite useful. It was hard to figure out whether a book would be in the main library, in Special Collections, in the Art Library or the Museum library. And subject headings don't always match. Lastly, there is something intellectually satisfying and challenging about finding everything from 16th century editions of Bede to Internet resources in a call number search of BR749. What you have to decide is whether the cost/benefit ratio for staff and patrons makes such extra work worthwhile. Larry Laurence S. Creider Head, General Cataloging Unit New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM 88003 Work: 505-646-4707 Fax: 505-646-7477 lcreider@lib.nmsu.edu On Thu, 1 May 2003, Deborah J. Leslie wrote: > DDC, LC, and other classification systems that I know of are all > subject classifications, specifically designed to facilitate reader > browsing. When stacks are closed and browsing is not permitted, the > primary goal of subject classification is not present. And since > subject classification does require time on the cataloger's part to > apply, and has shelving disadvantages as well, many rare book > repositories (such as the Folger) keep most of their rare books in > accession number order. > > There is an advantage to subject classification for closed stacks, > which is the browsing possible by shelfmark in online library systems. > It's a matter of effort vs. benefit. In a closed stack, the benefits > don't come close to justifying the efforts. > > ___________________________ > Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. > Head of Cataloging > Folger Shakespeare Library > 201 East Capitol St., S.E. > Washington, D.C. 20003 > 202.675-0369 (p) > 202.675-0328 (f) > djleslie@folger.edu > www.folger.edu > > > -----Original Message----- > From: jones barbara [mailto:jones5@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu] > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 2:34 PM > To: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu > Subject: [DCRB-L] Classification numbers > > > Colleagues: As a lapsed cataloger who has forgotten much of the > theoretical underpinnings, I would very much appreciate your opinions, > local practices, or references to articles on the following question: > > Why do we assign classification numbers in books in a closed stack such as > a rare book library? Do your libraries assign them? I am not referring > to named collections here. > > I would appreciate practical as well as theoretical reasons. > > I miss the good times we had in New Haven. Best wishes, Barbara Jones > > > From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Fri May 2 14:13:58 2003 From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Richard Noble) Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 09:13:58 -0400 Subject: [DCRB-L] Classification numbers In-Reply-To: <88539F4A9A5C3041B06A234AA2ABDB580176617A@portia.folger.edu > Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030502090224.00a55ec0@postoffice.brown.edu> This may be true of collection like the Folger's, and serve its readers and staff efficiently enough; but I'd be less sanguine about an arbitrary shelf arrangement in the John Hay Library, with its wide ranges and innumerable intensities of subjects. Is paging an issue? I should think that physical collocation of similar topics or genres might well facilitate the gathering of materials in large quantities for particular researchers, as we frequently find ourselves doing. We also profile our general collections by LC class for collection development, and are very much interested in building complementary circulating and special collections. Much depends on local conditions and the nature of the institution. I doubt whether there's a single good answer to this question. At 5/1/03 03:14 PM, Deborah Leslie wrote: >There is an advantage to subject classification for closed stacks, which >is the browsing possible by shelfmark in online library systems. It's a >matter of effort vs. benefit. In a closed stack, the benefits don't come >close to justifying the efforts. RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-2093 : RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Fri May 2 17:06:32 2003 From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (elizabeth l. johnson) Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 11:06:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: [DCRB-L] Classification numbers In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030502090224.00a55ec0@postoffice.brown.edu> Message-ID: At the Lilly Library we use the LC classification for our cataloged printed collections. I won't repeat all that others have already described, but just add that subject classification is certainly appropriate in our institutional setting as a rare books and special collections library that is part of an academic research library. An additional benefit is that we are able to participate in the North American Title Count (NATC) along with the other Indiana University Bloomington libraries. I will say that this type of classification does waste space and where space is at a premium we have resorted to an accession number shelving arrangement. Some newly acquired books that class in the "full" area do get classified, but the number is extended by a shelving number that alerts the page to find the book out of its regular spot in the stacks. When and if we have appropriate space, we can move the books back into their classification order. In the meantime, they can still be browsed by the LC class number. Elizabeth Johnson Lilly Library Indiana University From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Mon May 5 15:08:35 2003 From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Eric Holzenberg) Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 10:08:35 -0400 Subject: [DCRB-L] Classification numbers In-Reply-To: <88539F4A9A5C3041B06A234AA2ABDB580176617A@portia.folger.edu > Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20030505094313.010f0738@popserver.panix.com> --=====================_321666859==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Deborah, Barbara, et al. -- Reader browsing is not the only issue here. It depends upon the library, of course, but library staff often have access to at least some part of the rare book stacks, and they also benefit from classified arrangement -- this is particularly true of curators and others who create exhibitions. Cheers, Eric Holzenberg Director & Librarian The Grolier Club 47 East 60th Street New York, NY 10022 phone: 212/838-6690 fax: 212/838-2445 e-mail: ejh@grolierclub.org website: www.grolierclub.org At 03:14 PM 5/1/2003 -0400, you wrote: >DDC, LC, and other classification systems that I know of are all subject >classifications, specifically designed to facilitate reader browsing. When >stacks are closed and browsing is not permitted, the primary goal of >subject classification is not present. And since subject classification >does require time on the cataloger's part to apply, and has shelving >disadvantages as well, many rare book repositories (such as the Folger) >keep most of their rare books in accession number order. > >There is an advantage to subject classification for closed stacks, which >is the browsing possible by shelfmark in online library systems. It's a >matter of effort vs. benefit. In a closed stack, the benefits don't come >close to justifying the efforts. > >___________________________ >Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. >Head of Cataloging >Folger Shakespeare Library >201 East Capitol St., S.E. >Washington, D.C. 20003 >202.675-0369 (p) >202.675-0328 (f) >djleslie@folger.edu >www.folger.edu > > >-----Original Message----- >From: jones barbara [mailto:jones5@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu] >Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 2:34 PM >To: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu >Subject: [DCRB-L] Classification numbers > > >Colleagues: As a lapsed cataloger who has forgotten much of the >theoretical underpinnings, I would very much appreciate your opinions, >local practices, or references to articles on the following question: > >Why do we assign classification numbers in books in a closed stack such as >a rare book library? Do your libraries assign them? I am not referring >to named collections here. > >I would appreciate practical as well as theoretical reasons. > >I miss the good times we had in New Haven. Best wishes, Barbara Jones --=====================_321666859==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Deborah, Barbara, et al. --

Reader browsing is not the only issue here. It depends upon the library, of course, but library staff often have access to at least some part of the rare book stacks, and they also benefit from classified arrangement -- this is particularly true of curators and others who create exhibitions.

Cheers,

Eric Holzenberg
Director & Librarian
The Grolier Club
47 East 60th Street
New York, NY 10022
phone: 212/838-6690
fax: 212/838-2445
e-mail: ejh@grolierclub.org
website: www.grolierclub.org

At 03:14 PM 5/1/2003 -0400, you wrote:

DDC, LC, and other classification systems that I know of are all subject classifications, specifically designed to facilitate reader browsing. When stacks are closed and browsing is not permitted, the primary goal of subject classification is not present. And since subject classification does require time on the cataloger's part to apply, and has shelving disadvantages as well, many rare book repositories (such as the Folger) keep most of their rare books in accession number order.

There is an advantage to subject classification for closed stacks, which is the browsing possible by shelfmark in online library systems. It's a matter of effort vs. benefit. In a closed stack, the benefits don't come close to justifying the efforts.

___________________________
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
Head of Cataloging
Folger Shakespeare Library
201 East Capitol St., S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003
202.675-0369 (p)
202.675-0328 (f)
djleslie@folger.edu
www.folger.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: jones barbara [mailto:jones5@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu]
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 2:34 PM
To: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu
Subject: [DCRB-L] Classification numbers

Colleagues: As a lapsed cataloger who has forgotten much of the
theoretical underpinnings, I would very much appreciate your opinions,
local practices, or references to articles on the following question:

Why do we assign classification numbers in books in a closed stack such as
a rare book library? Do your libraries assign them? I am not referring
to named collections here.

I would appreciate practical as well as theoretical reasons.

I miss the good times we had in New Haven. Best wishes, Barbara Jones

--=====================_321666859==.ALT-- From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Mon May 5 17:20:12 2003 From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Richard Noble) Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 12:20:12 -0400 Subject: [DCRB-L] Classification numbers In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20030505094313.010f0738@popserver.panix.com> References: <88539F4A9A5C3041B06A234AA2ABDB580176617A@portia.folger.edu > Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030505120814.00a54280@postoffice.brown.edu> This is a point well taken: one of those things that might seem rather minor, until there you are with a class presentation that you just heard about, that will take place in a couple of hours; or an exhibition to be mounted yesterday and you do wonder what books of that sort look like. I think we vastly underplay the ways in which cataloging and the related arrangement of books enable us as librarians to serve readers and to manage our collections. The overemphasis on the catalog as a purely public facility leads us to underestimate the importance of the "indirect" services that are among the principal values that libraries add to collections. Classification plays a role in such services, and indeed there are many librarians (perhaps especially outside the US monoculture?) who feel that the classed catalog is a powerful but sadly neglected tool. At 5/5/03 10:08 AM, Eric Holzenberg wrote: >Reader browsing is not the only issue here. It depends upon the library, >of course, but library staff often have access to at least some part of >the rare book stacks, and they also benefit from classified arrangement -- >this is particularly true of curators and others who create exhibitions. RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-2093 : RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Tue May 6 14:21:36 2003 From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Jane Gillis) Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 09:21:36 -0400 Subject: [DCRB-L] Classification numbers In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20030505094313.010f0738@popserver.panix.com> References: <88539F4A9A5C3041B06A234AA2ABDB580176617A@portia.folger.edu > Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030505130741.00ae9388@jgillis.mail.yale.edu> --=====================_90828414==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Regarding the question of classification in closed stacks libraries, I would ask: --How much value does the classification add? How much time does it take to add this value? Would it be more useful, and not as time consuming, to add other access points? --Do you have limited time/money to do cataloging? If the whole collection is classed, how many fewer items get cataloged or what gets left out? --Does the classification scheme really "apply" to the collection? For example, a fine printing collection, with all the books classed in the LC classification scheme--this is probably not the way you would want to browse; you might want a classification scheme based on private printers, types of books, etc. --Do you have some collections that, for whatever reasons, "stay together"? If so, you can't "browse" a subject area online. There would be items you miss. Jane Gillis Jane Gillis | Rare Book Cataloger| Sterling Memorial Library Yale University | New Haven CT 06520 (203)432-2633 (voice) | (203)432-4047 (fax) | jane.gillis@yale.edu --=====================_90828414==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Regarding the question of classification in closed stacks libraries, I would ask:

--How much value does the classification add? How much time does it take to add this value?
Would it be more useful, and not as time consuming, to add other access points?

--Do you have limited time/money to do cataloging? If the whole collection is classed, how many fewer items get cataloged or what gets left out?

--Does the classification scheme really "apply" to the collection?
For example, a fine printing collection, with all the books classed in the LC classification scheme--this is probably not the way you would want to browse; you might want a classification scheme based on private printers, types of books, etc.

--Do you have some collections that, for whatever reasons, "stay together"? If so, you can't "browse" a subject area online. There would be items you miss.

Jane Gillis

Dear Colleagues,

It’s time to start making plans and = deadlines in preparation for the Bib Standards meetings at the ALA = annual conference in Toronto, June 20-22.

First, the current status. All of the = working groups have given drafts of their DCRM Conference work to me. I = am in the process of compiling and rough editing. I will do my best to = have a draft ready for your perusal by May 23 at the latest. In = the four weeks between then and the annual conference, I hope that some = of the more contentious or problematic issues will be brought to the = fore and discussed here on DCRB-L.

After the conference, I will hand the work = over to an editorial team under the leadership of Manon Th=E9roux, with = additional members Robert Maxwell, John Attig, Joe Springer, and me as = ex officio. Their task will be to shape the rough draft into a refined = one ready for public comment, tentatively by midwinter. Simultaneously, = a group formed to work on the glossary will go to work.

In other news, Elizabeth Robinson and I met = with Barbara Tillett, head of LC Cataloging Policy and Support Office = (CPSO). She is very interested in publishing DCRM(B). Her office will of = course be interested in scanning it carefully. She stated that the CPSO = need not agree with every provision in order to approve it for = publication. That is welcome news indeed.

___________________________
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
Head of = Cataloging
Folger = Shakespeare Library
201 East = Capitol St., S.E.
Washington, = D.C. 20003
202.675-0369 = (p)
202.675-0328 = (f)
djleslie@folger.edu
www.folger.edu

------_=_NextPart_001_01C31898.37D5DD3D-- From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Thu May 22 18:17:53 2003 From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Deborah J. Leslie) Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 13:17:53 -0400 Subject: [DCRB-L] RE: Cataloguers' conversion of uppercase I, J, U, V in pre-modern usage Message-ID: <88539F4A9A5C3041B06A234AA2ABDB58017662A3@portia.folger.edu> Mr Dillon raises an interesting point. Although the DCRM Conference Working Group 2 (that dealing with transcription of early letter forms) did not consider the issue, and although Brian is correct that our current rare book cataloging rules instruct us NOT to add diacritics not present in the source, we do run up against the upper/lower case discrepancy issue. Certainly if we were transcribing a word or name from lower-case on t.p. with no diacritics, we would not add them. [This is a _transcription_ field after all; of course any headings added to the record would have the established form of the name with diacritics and all.] But what if we were transcribing a word in all caps with no diacritics, but the lower-case text uses diacritics, why is there a difference in principle between adding diacritics to the transcription and using the lower-case practice of IJUV? In contrast, the rules for modern book cataloging (AACR2) do call for the addition of diacritics in transcription consonant with the conventions of the language. ___________________________ Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. Head of Cataloging Folger Shakespeare Library 201 East Capitol St., S.E. Washington, D.C. 20003 202.675-0369 (p) 202.675-0328 (f) djleslie@folger.edu www.folger.edu -----Original Message----- From: Brian Hillyard [mailto:ab224bh@nls.uk] Sent: 22 May 2003 12:48 To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Cataloguers' conversion of uppercase I, J, U, V in pre-modern usage On this there has been no proposal to depart from the existing DCRB 0H "In general do not add accents and other diacritical marks that are not present in the source", which is also the instruction in ISBD(A), rev. ed. 0.6. Brian Hillyard -- Dillonbook@aol.com wrote: > > While we're at it, I'd like to know what 'the rules' are for supplying > diacritics (accents) where they don't appear on titlepages (because they're set in > display-type) but would appear in 'ordinary' upper-and-lowercase text. > > Suppose, for example, that a titlepage gives an editor's name as "LA > BEDOLLIERE" but from other sources and/or commonsense we know that it's really "La > B�dolli�re". > > Jay Dillon - From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Fri May 23 14:35:27 2003 From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Stephen R. Young) Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 09:35:27 -0400 Subject: [DCRB-L] Latest available draft of the proposed revision of DCRB 0H Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20030523092435.02385e80@styoung.mail.yale.edu> --=====================_2680414==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed In Brian Hillyard's posting to exlibris yesterday of the latest available draft of the proposed revision of DCRB 0H, I notice a somewhat confusing departure from DCRB (italics are mine): 0H. Conversion of case In general, capitalize according to the provisions of AACR2 Appendix A. However, do not convert lowercase letters into uppercase. Was it a conscious departure from DCRB not to convert lowercase letters into uppercase? What was the rationale for this change? Stephen R. Young Rare Book Team Leader Catalog Dept., Sterling Memorial Library Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 Tel.: 203-432-8385 Fax: 203-432-7231 E-mail: stephen.young@yale.edu --=====================_2680414==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" In Brian Hillyard's posting to exlibris yesterday of the latest available draft of the proposed revision of DCRB 0H, I notice a somewhat confusing departure from DCRB (italics are mine):

0H. Conversion of case

In general, capitalize according to the provisions of AACR2 Appendix A.

However, do not convert lowercase letters into uppercase.

Was it a conscious departure from DCRB not to convert lowercase letters into uppercase? What was the rationale for this change?

Stephen R. Young
Rare Book Team Leader
Catalog Dept., Sterling Memorial Library
Box 208240
New Haven, CT 06520-8240

Tel.: 203-432-8385
Fax: 203-432-7231

E-mail: stephen.young@yale.edu --=====================_2680414==_.ALT-- From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Fri May 23 16:41:26 2003 From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Deborah J. Leslie) Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 11:41:26 -0400 Subject: [DCRB-L] Latest available draft of the proposed revision of DCRB 0H Message-ID: <88539F4A9A5C3041B06A234AA2ABDB58C37274@portia.folger.edu> This is an ISBD(A) requirement. We (DCRM Working Group 2) know that it is controversial, but wanted to put it out for public comment. The primary reason is that although in principle converting upper case based on usage may seem a simple proposition, it is in fact often not so for catalogers of rare materials. For example, the Right Honourable is to be capitalized, but what if the phrase is: "ryght honorable, and vertuous lady Katherine." Or even more ambiguous, "the honorable, vertuous, and pious lady Katherine." This type of instance abounds, and to eliminate the instruction to convert into upper-case, it is hoped that unnecessary agonizing will be eliminated. We wanted to at least consider following ISBD(A) on this. ______________________ Deborah J. Leslie Head of Cataloging Folger Shakespeare Library 201 East Capitol St., S.E. Washington, D.C. 20003 202.675-0369 (voice) 202.675-0328 (fax) djleslie@folger.edu www.folger.edu -----Original Message----- From: Stephen R. Young [mailto:stephen.young@yale.edu] Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 9:35 AM To: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Subject: [DCRB-L] Latest available draft of the proposed revision of DCRB 0H In Brian Hillyard's posting to exlibris yesterday of the latest available draft of the proposed revision of DCRB 0H, I notice a somewhat confusing departure from DCRB (italics are mine): 0H. Conversion of case In general, capitalize according to the provisions of AACR2 Appendix A. However, do not convert lowercase letters into uppercase. Was it a conscious departure from DCRB not to convert lowercase letters into uppercase? What was the rationale for this change? Stephen R. Young Rare Book Team Leader Catalog Dept., Sterling Memorial Library Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 Tel.: 203-432-8385 Fax: 203-432-7231 E-mail: stephen.young@yale.edu From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Fri May 23 21:53:58 2003 From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Richard Noble) Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 16:53:58 -0400 Subject: [DCRB-L] DCRB 0H - Capitals In-Reply-To: <88539F4A9A5C3041B06A234AA2ABDB58C37274@portia.folger.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030523164925.00a5b760@postoffice.brown.edu> I heartily second the idea and this line of reasoning. Many thanks.

At 5/23/03 11:41 AM, you wrote:

This is an ISBD(A) requirement. We (DCRM Working Group 2) know that it is controversial, but wanted to put it out for public comment.

The primary reason is that although in principle converting upper case based on usage may seem a simple proposition, it is in fact often not so for catalogers of rare materials. For example, the Right Honourable is to be capitalized, but what if the phrase is: "ryght honorable, and vertuous lady Katherine." Or even more ambiguous, "the honorable, vertuous, and pious lady Katherine."

This type of instance abounds, and to eliminate the instruction to convert into upper-case, it is hoped that unnecessary agonizing will be eliminated. We wanted to at least consider following ISBD(A) on this.

RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-2093 : RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Fri May 23 22:27:11 2003 From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Robert Maxwell) Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 15:27:11 -0600 Subject: [DCRB-L] Latest available draft of the proposed revision of DCRB 0H Message-ID: I'd just like to point out that "eliminating unnecessary agonizing" isn't one of the basic principles underlying our rules and isn't really a very good reason for departing from the AACR2 rule. Perhaps there are some rare book principles that make this change from the DCRB rule necessary? Although if there are particular principled reasons why we shouldn't ever convert lower to upper case, I should think the same principled reasons would apply to converting from upper to lower case. To paraphrase Lubetzky, "Is this difference in rules necessary?" I understand that this rule comes from ISBD(A) but in my opinion in the absence of principles that require rare materials to be treated differently from other materials AACR2 trumps ISBD(A). Group 2, on this point, already had to grapple with converting lower case to upper case when the word begins an area or certain elements (first word in the title, first word of alternative title, etc.), coming down on the side of converting in those cases (did we not?). If so, for me, this weakens the argument that we mustn't convert lower to upper in other places. Robert L. Maxwell Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian Genre/Form Authorities Librarian 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 >-----Original Message----- >From: dcrb-l-admin@lib.byu.edu >[mailto:dcrb-l-admin@lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie >Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 9:41 AM >To: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu >Subject: RE: [DCRB-L] Latest available draft of the proposed >revision of DCRB 0H > > >This is an ISBD(A) requirement. We (DCRM Working Group 2) know >that it is controversial, but wanted to put it out for public comment. > >The primary reason is that although in principle converting >upper case based on usage may seem a simple proposition, it is >in fact often not so for catalogers of rare materials. For >example, the Right Honourable is to be capitalized, but what >if the phrase is: "ryght honorable, and vertuous lady >Katherine." Or even more ambiguous, "the honorable, vertuous, >and pious lady Katherine." > >This type of instance abounds, and to eliminate the >instruction to convert into upper-case, it is hoped that >unnecessary agonizing will be eliminated. We wanted to at >least consider following ISBD(A) on this. > >______________________ >Deborah J. Leslie >Head of Cataloging >Folger Shakespeare Library >201 East Capitol St., S.E. >Washington, D.C. 20003 >202.675-0369 (voice) >202.675-0328 (fax) >djleslie@folger.edu >www.folger.edu > > > -----Original Message----- >From: Stephen R. Young [mailto:stephen.young@yale.edu] >Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 9:35 AM >To: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu >Subject: [DCRB-L] Latest available draft of the proposed >revision of DCRB 0H > > >In Brian Hillyard's posting to exlibris yesterday of the >latest available draft of the proposed revision of DCRB 0H, I >notice a somewhat confusing departure from DCRB (italics are mine): > >0H. Conversion of case > > >In general, capitalize according to the provisions of AACR2 >Appendix A. >However, do not convert lowercase letters into uppercase. > > >Was it a conscious departure from DCRB not to convert >lowercase letters into uppercase? What was the rationale for >this change? > > > > >Stephen R. Young >Rare Book Team Leader >Catalog Dept., Sterling Memorial Library >Box 208240 >New Haven, CT 06520-8240 > >Tel.: 203-432-8385 >Fax: 203-432-7231 > >E-mail: stephen.young@yale.edu >