[DCRB-L] General principles draft, Attig response

[Deborah J. Leslie]

-----Original Message-----
From: John Attig [mailto:jxa16@psulias.psu.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 5:48 PM
To: joeas@goshen.edu
Cc: Deborah J. Leslie
Subject: General principles draft, 20021116

In general, I think you have done a great job of articulating what seems to 
be the state-of-the-art conceptual foundations for cataloging, as well as 
the special requirements for describing rare books.

I'm glad you decided to go back to Elaine's text for the principles.  The 
statements in the draft Introduction to AACR are still too brief and need 
to be expanded, but that hasn't been done yet.

In your description of FRBR, I would note that one of the features that we 
have found most powerful -- particularly in justifying/rationalizing our 
reactions to cataloging rules and such -- is the list of user tasks.  For 
example, CC:DA used the list of user tasks in our assessment of metadata 
schemes such as Dublin Core, which allowed us to make the point that the 
identification task was not well supported.  Later I will suggest that you 
have basically the same point to make.

One possible misunderstanding in your discussion of the FRBR Type One 
entities:  It looks as though you are assuming that a named edition is a 
distinct manifestation, but not a distinct expression.  In fact it is both 
-- assuming that there are changes in the content.  A revised edition is a 
new expression of the work -- as well as being embodied in a new 
manifestation.  The expression entity is the most complex of the four; it 
includes differences in the form of expression (e.g., text vs. 
performance), differences in content, and differences like translation 
which I'm not sure how to characterize.  Your examples under expression and 
manifestation may give the wrong impression, and your point that users of 
rare materials are likely to be looking for specific manifestations (while 
certainly true) may be implying that different editions are ONLY different 
manifestations.  [This may be an area where FRBR itself does not apply 
adequately to rare materials, particularly hand-printed books; as FRBR is a 
document which IFLA intends to review and revise as needed, comments of 
this nature should be communicated to the appropriate group -- which I 
think is a new FRBR Review Group within the IFLA Section on Cataloguing.]

Regarding point b) under the principles of user convenience and common 
usage, I would note that the terminology in AACR2 is a moving target and 
that some of the details about how to use FRBR terminology are still very 
much under discussion.  Matthew can provide more detail.  Making DCRM 
consistent with AACR2 terminology may be something that has to be done late 
in the editorial process.

Regarding point c) under the principles of representation and accuracy, it 
seems to me that there is a tension here that is particularly important in 
the case of rare books.  Accuracy in transcribing how the item represents 
itself may not lead to accuracy in representing the facts; accurately 
transcribing intentionally misleading information such as false imprints 
follows the principles of representation and accuracy but may not be 
sufficient.  In addition to accuracy of transcription -- which is needed to 
support the identification task -- there needs to be some attention given 
to recording the facts behind the representation -- likewise in the 
interests of accuracy of information to support retrieval and identification.

Regarding point g) under the principle of integration, you seem to be 
thinking in terms of integration of rules for general and rare 
materials.  The original intention of this principle is to cover 
integration of rules for different formats.  Since DCRM will cover diverse 
formats, I would expect that the principle of integration would also be 
applied internally to the integration of rules for different formats of 
rare materials.

Regarding the four bullets on page 5, I suggest that explicit reference to 
the user tasks would be helpful in articulating the special requirements of 
rules for cataloging rare materials.  Specifically, in the first bullet, 
users of rare materials focus on the identification and selection tasks; in 
performing these tasks (as well as the finding task), there are attributes 
that are relevant to rare materials that are not usually relevant to other 
materials.  And -- as you clearly state -- attributes of individual items 
may be as important as, or more important than, attributes of either 
expression or manifestation in performing these user tasks.

I guess if I had to summarize most succinctly the special requirements for 
cataloging rare materials, I would list (a) the importance of 
identification, (b) the range of attributes that are needed to support 
identification, (c) the precision to which the principle of representation 
must be applied in order to support identification, and (d) the necessity 
to describe attributes of individual items.

Again, with the exception of what may be a mistake in interpreting 
expression vs. manifestation, these comments are merely suggestions for 
strengthening arguments already present in the paper.  I think you have 
done a great job in relating the DCRM revision to both the FRBR model and 
to the cataloging principles that will be included in the Introduction to AACR.

	John Attig