[DCRB-L] Bib Standards midwinter meeting discussion on DCRM

[Deborah J. Leslie]

At the recent midwinter meetings of the Bibliographic Standards Committee, the DCRM conference working group papers were on the agenda. I am appending here the excised portion of the relevant draft minutes. The full minutes are available at: http://www.folger.edu/bsc/2003.1minutes.html


RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee
Midwinter 2003 Draft Minutes
Philadelphia, PA, January 25-26, 2003

Members Present: Ann Copeland, Sarah Schmidt Fisher, Jain Fletcher, James Larrabee, Deborah J. Leslie (chair), Gregory Pass, Beth Russell,  Jennifer O'Brien Roper, Steven Skuce, Eileen Smith, Joe Springer, Manon Théroux

Liaisons: John Attig, Jane Gillis, Nancy Kandoian, Bob Maxwell, Elizabeth Robinson, Bruce Tabb

Visitors: Jeff Barton, Larry Creider, Charles Egleston, Ellen Ellickson, David Faulds, Elaine Franco, Laura Guelle, Billie Hackney, Ryan Hildebrand, Ruth Hughes, Elizabeth Johnson, Regan Kladstrup, Kenneth Lavender, Martha Lawler, Elizabeth Lilker, Windy Lundy, Elaine McConnell, Mary Faith Pankin, Nina Schneider, E.C. Schroeder, Elaine Shiner, Suzy Taraba, Alison Warner

<...>

9.      DCRB revision (Leslie)
      a.      DCRM Conference

Leslie announced that the conference plans are on track.  The DCRM Conference is an official BSC meeting; it is an invitational conference for the sole purpose of doing serious and productive work on the revision of DCRB.  Key work will be the additions to the text, such as the addressing collection level cataloging and machine press books.  The Beinecke Library, with support from Yale University Library, is supporting the conference.  The number of invitees had to be limited to 25, with the intention of making the discussion papers points of public discussion as much as possible.  Discussion on the papers is currently happening on DCRB-L, as people signed up to that list have expressed an interest in the revision.  This public component has yielded some excellent thoughts. 

The conference will be structured into plenary and working group sections. There are six working groups, and each conferee is assigned to 2 of the working groups. The intent is to bring DCRM(B) much closer to completion. The wording of DCRM text may not be exact at the end of the conference, but it expected to be close to finished.  As soon as a draft is ready, it will be distributed widely for public comment. 

Fletcher asked if there would be a chance to talk about nitty-gritty details about DCRM text; Leslie responded that this was the province of the Problems and Lacunae Working Group (WG5). Maxwell asked if there was going to be discussion on the final format, whether the document will be published in separate manuals, loose-leaf, etc.  Leslie thought that would be appropriate for a plenary meeting discussions. 

Shiner asked if the final product would be published in print or electronically, and Leslie responded that since the Library of Congress is the publisher, the ultimate word would be by that body.  Maxwell questioned Leslie's assumption that LC was settled as the publisher; and explained that when he as chair of BSC and spoke to LC about revising DCRB when this revision work began, he thought that LC was probably assuming that it would retain publishing rights. The group discussed whether or not LC would still be the publisher, with some assuming that it would be and others thinking that it was a point for discussion. There was also concern about the BSC retaining control in the electronic publishing of the final document, to ensure the integrity of the rules as stand-alone document. Leslie announced that the question of publisher was still open based on the extra information from Maxwell.

c.      Working Group 2: Transcription of Early Letter Forms (Leslie)
         See thread on DCRB-L archives under subject "Transcription rules" and variants in January 1999 and June 1999;
         http://www.folger.edu/bsc/dcrb/transsum.html

Leslie announced that a position paper for this working group has not yet been released.  She has provided links to earlier discussions on this issue.  There is no clear-cut best solution to this problem; it will eventually be a matter of choosing the least painful option. The paper will discuss the pros and cons of the various options. Leslie acknowledged that each method will have its advocates and detractors, but that it would be useful to have another chance to make a case for each.  Fletcher and Robinson agreed that this issue would impact other components of DCRM. Fletcher, referring to the possible recommendation for a different transcription system for DCRM(M), said that we should be aware of how the other formats might have to diverge from this rule if what applies to the printing of books does not apply to music, maps, or even serials. Maxwell requested that the reasoning for the decision, whichever way it goes, be clearly laid out.  Théroux asked if there was any documentation from the last time this issue was discussed and decided upon. Leslie pointed out that there might be no access to the real discussions from the writing of BDRB, but the group agreed that some sort of guidance would be helpful.


      d.      Working Group 3: Description of Machine-Press Materials (Théroux)
                http://www.folger.edu/bsc/dcrb/DCRMmachinepress121502.doc

Théroux issued a position paper for Working Group 3 in December.  The paper is organized following DCRB layout.  In the paper she made suggestions for new rules and revisions to existing rules for issues affecting machine press materials. She also proposed additional examples that would reinforce DCRM's suitability for 19th and 20th century materials. 

One of the major issues is how to treat printers and publishers, as these roles had settled, and by the 19th century the publisher was clearly the foremost entity, taking precedence over printers, booksellers, &c. DCRB currently instructs us transcribe publishers and printers interchangeably in the imprint area, but AACR2 and MARC provide for transcribing publisher information in one set of subfields and printer information in another group of subfields.  The second major issue is of interest to the other working groups, and that is when to create a record. Leslie emphasized that DCRB has not made an explicit stand on this issue, although there is some evidence within the rules suggesting an assumption that new records are to be made for each different edition, impression, and issue. If we are going to include rules for machine-press materials, DCRM will have to make a decision, state it explicitly, and use that as guidance for revision.  Théroux noted that there has not been too much response thus far to the paper.  She solicited more input, particularly from members of the working group. 

Théroux expanded on the issues of printers and publishers, noting that these functions became more defined in the 19th century.  The heart of the question is whether to treat printers, stereotypers, etc. as manufacturers or transcribe them as equals to publishers.  Fletcher opined that the wording should alert catalogers that the use of 'printer' and 'publisher' as equal terms only applies to pre-1801 materials. She also added that she has never felt that DCRB specifically prohibited the use of the $e and $f with that rule, especially when applying it for "post-1801" material where the roles of publisher and printer are more delineated.

Leslie pointed out that this group needs to agree to the use of these subfields as the way to present this information.   There was discussion on this issue.  Some felt that the principle of transcription only allows for the use of $e and $f when the information is found somewhere other than the title page. Others felt that transcribing all publishing and printing information into the $b made for ease of cataloging and training. Gillis suggested that everyone look at ISBD(A), which is available online.


      e.      Working Group 4: Collection-level Cataloging (Fletcher)
               http://www.folger.edu/bsc/dcrb/wg4outline.doc

Fletcher introduced the issue of collection-level cataloging by stating that institutions are looking for ways to reduce backlogs, and that collection level cataloging has been suggested as a viable method of cataloging a large collection. She defined this issue as relating to unique collections comprised mostly of items which had originally been published.
When asked to define 'unique,' she said that Library of Congress has already suggested guidelines for cataloging a publisher issued collection.  'Unique' refers to materials that were pulled together in some other way, meaning no one else holds these exact materials as a collection.  She admits that her paper will repeat a lot of information that archivists who have traditionally dealt with these issues.  She makes a point of stating in the paper that collection-level cataloging does not necessarily guarantee that less time and less money will be spent in processing a collection.  She emphasized that the preparation stage in collection level cataloging is important.  The paper defers mostly, if not completely, to APPM for descriptive guidance; access issues will run along more familiar lines for rare and special materials catalogers. Rather than going field by field, which has already been done in APPM, this paper suggests how to prepare a collection for cataloging.  Lack of preparation can lead to incorrect and incomplete records. 

Leslie asked if Fletcher envisioned this section of DCRM(B) to be a separate chapter instead of an appendix, expressing concern that an appendix would not have the same force as a chapter.  Larrabee asked how the issue of collection level cataloging fit into the confines of DCRM(B) at all, since these 'collections' contain published items, and provisions for the cataloging of published items are already contained in the rules.  The group discussed the place of the collection level cataloging guidelines in the work.  Maxwell pointed out that collection-level records do not necessarily always have to be created in lieu of item-level cataloging, but rather as an enhancement to the individual records by providing an overarching record; analytics in reverse.  Théroux argued for adding this section in as an appendix.  Leslie retracted her statement about appendices not bearing the authority of the code, noting that she had been thinking of how NISO standards are organized. This is not, however, a NISO standard, and the appendices can carry full authority.

       f.      Working Group 5: Problems and Lacunae in DCRB (Leslie)
                          http://www.folger.edu/bsc/dcrb/problems20021218.doc

A list of identified problems and lacunae has been posted (URL above), but most are without specific recommendations, much less argument or justification. Leslie said that the main issues for amendment have to do with articulating a basic principle of transcription, and re-working the current rules based on the principle. There are a number of inconsistencies in treatment of transcribed data. The other major change would be for increased guidance for the 300 field, (such as the minor but vexing problem of an unnumbered first page after a roman sequence followed by an Arabic sequence), and eliminating one of the options for non-self-correcting pagination in favor of increased precision. Leslie spoke of a movement for less silent omission and fuller transcription, and cautioned that Brian Hillyard of the NLS is arguing for not even transposing separable elements. Maxwell said that these questions would partly depend upon the work of the general principles group.  Maxwell urged this working group to provide guidance while leaving room for cataloger judgment. Leslie confirmed that the next draft of the paper would consider the proposals in the context of discussion, argument, and justification.

The group discussed when revisions of the paper should be sent out prior to the conference.  The authors were instructed to post a deadline for comments for inclusion in the pre-conference versions in their next draft.  The final pre-conference draft should be finished and distributed 2 weeks prior to the conference.     

Leslie adjourned the meeting at 11 a.m.

 
BSC II: Sunday, 16 June 2002, 9:00-11:00 am

Leslie called the meeting to order at 9 a.m.

DCRB revision cont. (Leslie)
 
b.      Working Group 1: General Principles (Springer)
                        http://www.folger.edu/bsc/dcrb/draft principles 20021116.doc
                        http://www.folger.edu/bsc/dcrb/generalprinciples.html

Leslie began the discussion of the General Principles paper by stating that many of the issues in working Group 1 and Working Group 6 overlap, but that she would like to have distinct discussions on the papers, to make sure that things get covered. Springer began by stating that the contents of this paper are derivative of contributions by IFLA and others. He struggled to decide whether these were general principles to guide the specific work of the DCRM conference or a prototype of the forward for DCRM(B). It is still somewhat vague, but it is mostly a broad view of the principles to take into consideration while revising the rules. He provided a brief overview of the development of rare book cataloging in the last twenty years, which saw a shift from working alone, in-house in a card environment to the current realities of copy and shared cataloging. One thing for this group to consider is IFLA's requirements for the bibliographic record, and what of these is of interest to the rare book cataloging community. How relevant is the concept of manifestation, and how is it defined -- is it simply a typographical shift or is there something more intellectual involved. He suggests paying attention to the user task areas as the group works on this at the conference.

In defining the principles that guide the construction of a bibliographic record, there are some obvious tensions.  One such tension is the principle of user convenience and the principle of standardization.  For instance, harking back to the prospect of starting the transcription where the title page starts (with no regard for separable elements), this makes it standard, but is it convenient for the user? There is also a tension in the principle of integration, as integration can be seen either in terms of other cataloging codes or across formats. Attig suggested that the user tasks from the CC:DA Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) might also be helpful with this issue. Attig also noted that the terms of cataloging are evolving, as evidenced by the Joint Steering Committee's (JSC) current struggle with the term 'manifestation'.  Currently a new manifestation is considered to be in existence when any attribute changes, and this is a much finer level of granularity than non-rare book cataloging uses.  Leslie pointed out that Springer had used the FRBR as a model when writing his paper because the committee had understood that this was going to be the main defining vocabulary for bibliographic relationships within AACR.   This committee would like to be clear to the cataloging community at large in the wording of DCRM(B), but we are not wedded to the use of these terms if the JSC is going in a different direction.  Attig admitted that it is not clear what the end result of the FRBR terms vis-à-vis AACR will be.  Maxwell stressed that while DCRM may not be wedded to FRBR, they are wedded to AACR, and we therefore need to keep an eye on the direction of the JSC.  Attig said that using the FRBR as a starting point is a good way to stay in line with current thinking. 

Creider stated that thus far in the discussion there is a continuing assumption that the users of these rules are interested in identification of manifestation, but there are many researchers who use these materials for their intellectual content.  A 16th-century copy of Ovid that contains notes of certain scholars may be of interest to a researcher because of those notes, and the general principles need to discuss this aspect.  Many pointed out that DCRB concentrates on Areas 1-8 and assumes that AACR will take care of the other aspects of the record.  Springer asked if the provision of intellectual access would require different mechanics from AACR, or is it more a matter of how those mechanics are employed.  Creider responded that it requires both, since transcription will be necessary to justify added entries.  Attig agreed that the general principles are the perfect place to discuss the concept that there are unique physical and intellectual aspects to rare book cataloging.  Springer will attempt to incorporate this idea into the paper.  Larrabee proposed taking 'descriptive' out of the title, but Leslie argued that no one is prepared to discuss the whole range of access points in the document.  Théroux agreed that authority issues allow for less room to deviate from the norm with access points.  Robinson suggested that the committee take a methodical approach to identify access point deviations for rare book cataloging and create rule interpretations for these deviations. 

Leslie noted to Springer that this paper also needed to include more specific principles for writing new rules or revising the rules that are specific to books, as it will be used DCRM(B).  She would like to see the paper address issues like what is the principle behind transcription and to what levels should transcription be taken.  These are the issues that will affect the work of other groups. 

Leslie asked for the group's thoughts on the idea of no longer requiring silent omission of dedications.  Fletcher asked if there would be provision to continue omitting dedications, just no longer silently.  The group discussed the two sides of the argument, that of providing researchers with a greater level of descriptive detail about a book versus the problems that such faithful transcription might cause catalogers working in a shared catalog.  Fletcher pointed out that a line must be drawn somewhere, there will always be more information that will help researchers than can be realistically provided in a record.  Attig questioned whether or not silently omitting information misrepresents an item.  He added that user convenience is not always served by transcription.  Smith argued that a greater level of transcription would also help catalogers determine when an item in hand matches a record or not.  Maxwell suggested watching the groups working on AACR2, as they are dealing with similar issues of what to provide access for and where to draw the line.

      g.      Working Group 6: Editions, Issues, and States (Attig)
                        http://www.folger.edu/bsc/dcrb/wg6.doc

Attig acknowledged that he is not an active rare book cataloger, but noted that there is a convergence between rare and standard cataloging on the issue of when to create a new record.  There is currently a disconnect between the rules and the real world.  The rules assume a cataloger is always creating an original record, when the reality is that a cataloger is working in a shared cataloging environment.  The rules should recognize this shared environment, and Attig's paper therefore concentrates on the concept of edition in evaluating when to create a new record.  It was difficult, though, to examine the FRBR and restate the principles in these terms, because  'expression' is not a concrete term, and  'manifestation' is a little too detailed, particularly for non-book materials. 

Leslie asked Attig to summarize the guidelines for a creating a new record -- is it done for a new edition, a new issue?  Where does impression fall in this hierarchy?  Many in the group saw this issue as one area where rare book cataloging deviates from general material cataloging; some institutions may even want to create separate records for each item. There are rare book catalogers, though, who are inputting records into a system that provides holdings for multiple locations, so this idea of a separate record for each copy does not serve their users who are simply looking for a copy that can be checked out from a circulating collection.  Leslie noted that while the lowest common denominator reader might be frustrated by an extreme level of detail, the buyers or rare materials may find this information useful in determining whether or not to purchase a particular item.  The group also discussed the impact of creating new records based on use of the bibliographic utilities and their requirements. 

Leslie noted that the BSC would need to make a decision on this issue of specifying when to create a new record.  She suggested writing the rules as if the cataloger were creating a record for each edition, impression and issue, and then providing an appendix with guidelines for creating a new record. Springer asked if this would be helpful for cataloging machine-press books, and Théroux replied that this was the approach she had used in her position paper, largely because it seemed to be what DCRB already implies, but that other options could also work. The group agreed that the rules should be flexible enough to allow for catalogers to take into account their limitations and needs based on institution and bibliographic utility.  Leslie added that DCRM should include guidance on when to use different levels of cataloging, and when the use of the DCRM rules is appropriate at all.  
___

<...>
________________________
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