DCRM (G) workflow discussion

When should DCRM (G) be used? (As discussed @Suzanne007 ) see also closed issue re. BSR-RDA-MAP

Proposed wording:

DCRM (G) should be used as a primary descriptive cataloguing standard for graphic material items and/or graphic materials originally conceived of, or issued as, a finite set.

When describing material as a larger archival unit, for example a collection consisting of accumulated parts, Describing Archives: A Content Standard (DACS) should be used as a primary descriptive standard. In this context DCRM (G) may be used as a complimentary resource, for example, when material specific advice is required, but only where this advice is not in conflict with DACS.

When creating name authorities, DCRM (G) Appendix F can be referred to, but resultant name authorities must conform to the form of heading established in Library of Congress Name Authorities (LCNA).

Comments Welcome.

Hi Glenn, here are my suggestions if you are saying cataloguers use DCRM(g) for single pictorial items etc:

"DCRM (G) should be used as a primary descriptive cataloguing standard for graphic materials including single items and finite sets or series.

When describing graphic material other than single items and finite sets or series, Describing Archives: A Content Standard (DACS) should be used as a primary descriptive standard. In this context DCRM (G) may be used as a complementary resource, for example, when material specific advice is required, but only where this advice is not in conflict with DACS."

Name authorities - do we need to mention them? The Library has developed guidelines for creating name authorities and this should be followed

However, after the conversation at our meeting today, I still think there needs to be a decision on whether DACS should be the primary standard and that cataloguers refer to DCRM(G) when instructed to do so in DACS or material specific advice is required, but only where this advice is not in conflict with DACS

The following instances are when cataloguers are instructed to do so: Formal title: DACS 2.3.2 When recording a formal title, transcribe the information according to the appropriate standard. Some companion standards are suggested in Appendix B. Rules for transcribing formal titles are not provided here.

This means, that cataloguers need only to refer to DCRM(G) only when when recording a formal title. When devising a title, they can refer to DACS. The benefit is that DACS instructs cataloguers to include the name of the creator as part of the devised title.

Dates: Date(s) of publication are recorded if the unit being described is a commercially issued or mass-produced item. Record this date information (including dates of publishing, distributing, releasing, and issuing of items) according to rules in various chapters of RDA or other appropriate standards (see Appendix B). Dates of publication are most often recorded when describing items.

For all other dates, refer to DACS

Extent: If the description of particular media or individual items requires more detail, such as other physical characteristics or dimensions, consult an appropriate standard, such as those listed in Appendix B. Note: The current pratice for the Library re extent is to use terms defined in the ACMS manual under Specific Material Desgination Graphic - the terms are taken from the LCSH Thesaurus for Grahpic Materials. If we are to continue this practice, then Archival Team will need to produce guidelines or summary sheet with the instructions for recording extent.

7.1 Notes (Added Value) If it is desirable to provide information on sources of descriptive information, title variations, statements of responsibility, signatures and inscriptions, attributions and conjectures, editions, dates, and publishers’ series, see the appropriate chapter(s) in RDA or other descriptive standards as described in the Overview of Archival Description

The previous comments in this issue have been made with the assumption that it has been decided by Lynne that DCRM (G) is to be the Library’s primary descriptive cataloguing standard for ‘graphic material items and/or graphic materials originally conceived of, or issued as, a finite set’. My thinking is that this may create unnecessary complexities and inconsistencies for cataloguers which could be avoided by using DACS as the primary descriptive cataloguing standard for archival material across all formats, with the use of companion standards only where advised by DACS.

Several parts of the DACS site refer to the role of companion standards. Examples include: • Archivists should look to DACS for guidance about how to describe the qualities of archives as records – their creation, provenance, maintenance, and relationship to other records and creators. Archivists should consult companion standards for guidance on creating authorized forms of names and portraying the particular artifactual characteristics of specialized materials (like music, archived websites, or any example of the vast variety of other materials that may be found in an archive’s holdings). (From Preface) • As indicated in the Overview, DACS includes basic rules for the types of holdings found in many archives, but they do not include all the rules needed to describe every possible type of document. Where further guidance is required, the following standards provide more detailed rules for describing published materials and particular types of nontextual materials. For the most comprehensive and up-to-date listing of standards, see the Society of American Archivists’ Standards Portal: http://www2.archivists.org/standards. (From Appendix B Companion Standards)

The message seems to be that cataloguers should consult companion standards ‘where further guidance is required’ when DACS does not cover a specific area or has insufficient detail.

There are also specific instances in DACS where cataloguers are instructed to consult companion standards. (Suzanne has also covered this in her comment above.) Examples include: • 2.3.2 When recording a formal title, transcribe the information according to the appropriate standard. Some companion standards are suggested in Appendix B. Rules for transcribing formal titles are not provided here. (From Title – Sources of Information) • If the description of particular media or individual items requires more detail, such as other physical characteristics or dimensions, consult an appropriate standard, such as those listed in Appendix B. (From Extent – Purpose and Scope)

I would suggest that it is more consistent and logical to follow DACS advice on when to use companion standards than to select a different primary standard from DACS for one part of one format (i.e. graphic material items/finite sets). It also avoids having conflicting cataloguing advice from two different sources e.g. regarding the use, or not, of square brackets for devised titles.

Hi All, Importantly - DQSS' position, as informed by Lynne, is that DCRM (G) remains the Library’s descriptive cataloguing standard for Graphic Materials. This discussion 'When should DCRM (G) be used?' is intended to be about the best wording of any instruction given to cataloguers, so as to avoid confusion. It is not about whether or not DCRM(G) is the standard.

Glenn

Just to clarify - my comments above were written because I felt it was assumed that DCRM(G) was the principal standard for single items etc., Glenn has mentioned this several times. But I thought this needed further discussion. Which is why I asked Glenn to refer this to Lynne.

In addition to Ann's comments, I think we do need to look at the recent/current practice for pictorial material.

Up until recently, cataloguers referred to the ACMS manual, which directed pictures cataloguers to Betz in very limited circumstances: Titles and statement of responsibility supplemented by local rules. Dates: the table with examples of dates was drawn from Betz, with local examples added. So all cataloguers, not just pictures cataloguers, referred to this table, not to a specific standard. The ACMS table was then superseded by the Adlib Guidelines for entering free text dates Extent: Physical Characteristics - referred to Thesaurus for Graphic Materials and referred to Betz for further examples.

For all other fields, the ACMS manual referred to the RAD rule, then gave local examples. These rules may or may not have have been in agreement with Betz - I can't say without looking at them.

So my point is that cataloguers were not referring to Betz extensively, just in limited circumstances. Whether this poses a problem for DCRM(G) is yet to be discovered!

The ACMS manual states: 2. Records will be standards based**** Records are structured on the principles of archival description. Records created will be based on the rules promulgated in Rules for Archival Description (2).

Content Standards Primary standard Rules for Archival Description. Second Edition. Canadian Committee on Archival Description, Canadian Council of Archives, 2004. (RAD2) Canadian Council of Archives

Supplementary Standards • Graphic materials: Rules for describing original items and historical collections (Betz) Graphic Materials - Original & Historical: Contents

Suzanne

Hi, Just to confirm - DCRM(G) is the standard for graphic materials, this per Lynne's advice and existing documentation. I'm saying this not to shut down any discussion, but just to emphasise that this is not something that is being personally driven by me.

I have already referred to Suzanne's comments to Lynne - it's just the case that Lynne has not yet commented, which is a reflection of her workload. With consideration to this, I've created another Issues page - The aim being to end up with a concise list of points requiring clarification. The link: Still requiring clarification

I think the general proposition to refer to the companion standards, upon direction given in DACS, is ostensibly sound. However, at the moment we're concentrating on Titles and Dates. With regard to devising titles, the few examples within DACS for items are of letters, so while I think the proposition to refer to format standards only for formal titles is a great problem solver, I still think that there will be a consistent argument for format specific advice here. Thus the need to refer to DCRM(G).

I originally proposed, as wording for an overall workflow, the following:

Follow general guidelines in ISAD (G)

Where the above lacks specificity refer to:

Describing Archives: A Content Standard (Second Edition) (DACS)

Where the above lacks specificity refer also to:

The recommended format specific standard, according to material type:

Graphic Materials

Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Graphic Materials).

Otherwise, Identify and apply an appropriate local procedure.

However, as I understand things, this is too broad to be able to be usefully applied.

Thanks, Glenn

DACSAdlib / dacaxc

DCRM (G) workflow discussion #11