Still requiring clarification

[DACSAdlib]

@cybergargoyle @DACSAdlib @Meredith007 @Suzette-B @janamanda007 @AnnP007 @Suzanne007

Please be concise and prefer point form.

[AnnP007]

@cybergargoyle @DACSAdlib @Meredith007 @Suzette-B @janamanda007 @AnnP007 @Suzanne007

Is DACS to be the primary standard for the cataloguing of all archival material, or is an exception to be made for the cataloguing of graphic materials, for which the primary standard is to be DCRM(G)?

In the initial stages of discussion within the working group, my understanding was that DACS would be the primary descriptive standard for the cataloguing of all archival formats. This seems to me to be a sound concept and an opportunity for the Library to have coherent and consistent cataloguing across all formats. DACS incorporates all the data elements of ISAD(G), is relatively straightforward and, importantly, encourages the cataloguer to consult ‘companion standards’ for ‘further guidance’. The companion standards, including DCRM(G) for graphic materials, would be used when DACS does not cover a specific area, has insufficient detail and in specific instances where directed by DACS, including for transcribing formal titles.

It has now been stated by Glenn that ‘DQSS’ position, as informed by Lynne, is that DCRM (G) remains the Library’s descriptive cataloguing standard for Graphic Materials’. I feel that this will create unnecessary complexity in cataloguing, difficulty and confusion for cataloguers and inconsistency in the public catalogue records. To clarify - I am not advocating that DCRM(G) be ignored, just that it be used as a companion standard under the umbrella of DACS.

It may be that Lynne has made this decision without being made fully aware of the ramifications. Other members of this working group may wish to elaborate on the problems this has already raised and will continue to raise. My purpose in raising this issue is to request that Lynne be asked to clarify for us the rationale behind the decision to use DCRM(G) over DACS as a primary standard and to discuss possible solutions.

[DACSAdlib]

List after meeting 5 August 2020 Workflow - Graphic Material Items

• When describing graphic material items, should cataloguers refer to DCRM(G) only when directed to refer to a companion standard/Appendix B in DACS?
  • Resulting from this, when recording titles:
  • Only materials with formal titles will be cataloged according to DCRM(G)
  • Graphic material items lacking formal titles will have titles devised according to DACS, and not DCRM(G)
    • See the comment below for further implications
    • In addition, the fact the ISBD puncuation is prescribed in this area by DCRM(G) will have to be considered
    • Also, the fact that there is no crosswalk from DACS/ISAD to the discrete ISBD/MARC 21 'Statement of Responsibility' field, needs to be taken into account.

Workflow - General - Companion standards

• Should companion standards only be referred to by cataloguers where there is an instruction in DACS to refer to a companion standard/Appendix B?

When can cataloguers start to use DACS?

• After the initial workshop (focusing on titles and dates) are Adlib cataloguers able to use DACS to create full records in production?

[Meredith007]

Should we specify whether to use 'bulk' or 'predominant' (as we did for the use of 'approximately' over 'circa')? Current guidelines use 'predominant'.

DACS 2.4.10 - Optionally, where the dates pertaining to the majority of the documents in the unit being described differ significantly from the inclusive dates, provide predominant or bulk dates. Specify them as such, preceded by the word predominant or bulk. Never provide predominant or bulk dates without also providing inclusive dates.

1785-1960, bulk 1916-1958 1942-1998, predominant 1975-1991

[cybergargoyle]

hi, I think there has been a misunderstanding. I did not mean to say that DCRM(G) was the primary standard for graphic materials for either published or unpublished items. It is a companion standard like the other titles in the DCRM suite.

thanks Lynne

[janamanda007]

My personal preference would be to use 'predominant', cause I think 'bulk' sounds odd. No other reason.

[DACSAdlib]

hi, I think there has been a misunderstanding. I did not mean to say that DCRM(G) was the primary standard for graphic materials for either published or unpublished items. It is a companion standard like the other titles in the DCRM suite.

thanks Lynne

Hi Lynne (@cybergargoyle)

Didn't mean to imply that there is any question as to whether DCRM(G) should be used for published, unpublished, or both. Rather, the key issue/question is whether DCRM(G) should be referred to for devising the titles of untitled graphic material items.

Importantly in DACS section 2.3 Titles cataloguers are only explicitly referred to the 'companion standards' for advice when recording 'formal titles' . According to DACS, formal titles can be found on either published or unpublished works. Thus, if cataloguers are only advised to treat DCRM(G) as a companion standard, and are not given any further advice, the titles of untitled paintings and photographs will be devised according to DACS, rather than DCRM(G).

The result of this may be an untitled photograph with a devised title as follows:

• Bill Henson photographic portrait of an unidentified man Rather than:
• Untitled portrait, 1983 / Bill Henson

Perhaps this is of little consequence, but it is in contrast to how gallery's and museums are approaching the cataloguing of graphic material items (AGNSW). Thus, whether there should be an additional instruction to refer to DCRM(G) (updated to RDA per the previously discussed BSR-RDA-MAP, thus no square brackets) for devised titles should be given some consideration - here is a workflow.

I think that not making a decision on this now will led to the creation of addition local rules, specific to photographic formats etc. anyway.

As you can see from this thread DACS/Adlib members disagree on this, other members preferring a simplified workflow. Thus, why the question has been put forward for clarification.

Thanks, Glenn

[cybergargoyle]

I was responding to the remarks : "It has now been stated by Glenn that ‘DQSS’ position, as informed by Lynne, is that DCRM (G) remains the Library’s descriptive cataloguing standard for Graphic Materials’. I feel that this will create unnecessary complexity in cataloguing, difficulty and confusion for cataloguers and inconsistency in the public catalogue records. To clarify - I am not advocating that DCRM(G) be ignored, just that it be used as a companion standard under the umbrella of DACS.

It may be that Lynne has made this decision without being made fully aware of the ramifications. Other members of this working group may wish to elaborate on the problems this has already raised and will continue to raise. My purpose in raising this issue is to request that Lynne be asked to clarify for us the rationale behind the decision to use DCRM(G) over DACS as a primary standard and to discuss possible solutions."

which seem to be arguing against something that I am not saying.

I am trying to clarify a broader position in the first instance.

The title issue is separate and I have set an appointment to discuss this with you tomorrow rather than type out lots of words.

thanks Lynne

[DACSAdlib]

OK, thanks for explaining @cybergargoyle Perhaps the extent to which I'm easily confused is accentuated, rather than disguised, by online collaborative platforms.