[DCRB-L] FW: AACR2 more permissive than DCRB??

[Richard Noble]

At 3/22/03    05:15 PM, Deborah wrote:
>In recent discussions, we decided to make DCRB more restrictive by 
>limiting the allowable terms to those that have fixed fields codes.

I was unaware of this (or at least, in the simultaneous run-up to your 
conference and March Rare Book School, failed to take it in), and am 
inclined to argue strongly against it.

"Fixed field" values for illustrations are essentially derivative of the 
body of the record, though in this case with a degree of imprecision that 
exemplifies a continuing disconnect between the rules for the formulation 
of records and the protocols for encoding them. The original purpose of the 
control fields--in addition to their MARC-specific functions--was clearly 
to provide early-generation systems with predictable and brief (i.e. easily 
stored) values by which to perform various manipulations (and it is still 
to be wished that some systems might make better use of them). Later 
systems have much more powerful means of exploiting the variable data 
fields; and the fact that MARC preceded AACR2 is evident in 008 bytes18-21: 
"plates" no longer figure in 300 $b, "charts" and "photographs" (useful 
terms that they are) are not specified in AARC2 2.5C2, "illuminations" 
(also useful) is likewise not provided for in AACR2 4.5C; and "phonodisc, 
phonowire, etc." (to the mind of the twenty-oughts) is a curiously 
selective nod to "non-book" media, and seems misplaced where it is found in 
MARC21. Moreover, would you desire or be able to invoke such a principle in 
the other DCRMs?

The use of terms in the "other physical details" element of area 
5--incidentally (from our point of view) encoded in the MARC communications 
format as 300 $b and at this point somewhat inconsistently reflected in 
008/18-21--ought to be considered strictly on its own merits, based on the 
materials to be described and the practicable means by which to do so in 
that portion of the record. The inherent limitations (one 26-letter 
alphabet) and other "legacy" characteristics of 008/18-21 should not be 
allowed to exercise what seems to me like an unwarrantable and historically 
inconsistent influence on those considerations; in that respect, we 
certainly ought to emulate the editors of AACR2, who clearly and properly 
disregarded it. In short, this seems to me like a classic, and in view of 
the recent amendments to AACR2 2.5C, retrograde tail-wagging-dog proposal.

Perhaps that's putting it too harshly. I hope, at least, that you haven't 
reached the point where you can't revisit this proposal or decision (I'm 
not sure what's which at this point), and will move rather to take 
advantage of the flexibility newly allowed by AACR2, and at the same time 
provide some guidance for the best way to do so in our particular context. 
That is my earnest plea from the sidelines (with thanks for letting me 
kibitz from that privileged position).


RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-2093 : RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU