Highlighting areas within DACS where an institutional position/local rule may be required.Have placed on the agenda for the next meeting 12/08/2020
Order of elements within title
Question for DACS/Adlib members: The order of elements within titles is not prescribed in DACS, but it is implied through the examples used. DACS/Adlib members have agreed that the name element should be listed first in a title. Is there a need for further statement detailing the order of other elements, or is this also implied? For example:
Order elements within titles as follows, as much as it is practical to do so, however the order of elements can be changed if doing so assists clarity
Top level
Name segment (first element)
Nature of the unit (second element)
Predominant form (third element, if required)
Optional topical term (optional element, last)
Lower level
Name segment (first element - if not inherited)
Nature of the unit or predominant form (second element)
Optional topical term (optional element, last)
All members agreed that prescription was not needed beyond the existing advice to prefer DACs and to prefer ordering the name element first in a devised title where doing so does not hinder clarity
All agreed, meeting 12 August 2020
Title - Where there is more than one corporate body
Question for DACS/Adlib members: DACS advises that only one corporate should be identified in a title. Is there a need for a local rule here, or is it the case that such instances are rare and thus should be dealt with on a case by case basis?
See DACS 2.3.16: ‘If the records of more than one corporate body are included in the materials, record only one name in the title. Establish a consistent policy for selecting the name of the corporate body to be used in the title’.
Ann suggested that it should be possible to write a short statement providing advice on this.
See DACS 2.3.18: ‘Optionally, where the name of the corporate body has changed, use the name under which the bulk of the material was created’
All members agreed that the option at 2.3.18 should not be followed, giving preference to 2.3.17 'use the last (latest) name of the corporate body represented in the materials being described'
All agreed, meeting 12 August 2020
Title - Terminology - Nature of the Archival Unit
Question for DACS/Adlib members: Concerning the use of ‘papers’, ’records’, ‘collection’, 'aggregated collection', 'archive' in titles. Is there a requirement for a statement?
See DACS 2.3.19: ‘Titles should be constructed in a coherent and consistent format according to the rules of the individual institution’
All members agreed that choosing an appropriate term for the nature of the archival unit should be left to cataloguers discretion, but that advice would be given within the scope of a workshop.
All agreed, meeting 12 August 2020
Title – Terminology - Form
Question for DACS/Adlib members: Is there a need to provide a reference to a preferred source or to provide a list of definitions, or is it enough to point to the existing list provided for extent?
See DACS 2.3.20 and footnote: 'Repositories are strongly encouraged to use standardized vocabulary when describing form(s) of material as part of the devised title'
With reference to DACS 2.3.20, all members agreed that it was currently not practical to provide a standardized vocabulary to cataloguers. However the extent terminology list may be used for graphic materials, and that thesauri may be selected for reference at a later date by DQSS.
All agreed, meeting 12 August 2020
Question for DACS/Adlib members: Concerning collections of multiple forms – should the use of 'and other material' be left to cataloguer’s discretion?
See DACS: 2.3.21: ...Use of ‘and other material’.
All agreed that this should be left to cataloguer's discretion
All agreed, meeting 12 August 2020
Title – Option - Topic
Question for DACS/Adlib members: Concerning the option to include a topic in a title. Is advice required or should this be left to cataloguers’ discretion?
See DACS 2.3.22: 'Optionally, devise a brief term or phrase that most precisely and concisely characterizes the unit being described'.
All agreed that this should be left to cataloguer's discretion
Titles - Areas for discussion/decision
Highlighting areas within DACS where an institutional position/local rule may be required. Have placed on the agenda for the next meeting 12/08/2020
Order of elements within title
Question for DACS/Adlib members: The order of elements within titles is not prescribed in DACS, but it is implied through the examples used. DACS/Adlib members have agreed that the name element should be listed first in a title. Is there a need for further statement detailing the order of other elements, or is this also implied? For example:
Order elements within titles as follows, as much as it is practical to do so, however the order of elements can be changed if doing so assists clarity
Top level
Lower level
Optional topical term (optional element, last)
Title - Where there is more than one corporate body
Question for DACS/Adlib members: DACS advises that only one corporate should be identified in a title. Is there a need for a local rule here, or is it the case that such instances are rare and thus should be dealt with on a case by case basis?
See DACS 2.3.16: ‘If the records of more than one corporate body are included in the materials, record only one name in the title. Establish a consistent policy for selecting the name of the corporate body to be used in the title’.
Title - Corporate body name change
Question to DACS/Adlib members: Is there a need for a position on corporate name changes -- Example 'Boilermakers' and Blacksmiths' Society of Australia records, 1876-1972'
See DACS 2.3.18: ‘Optionally, where the name of the corporate body has changed, use the name under which the bulk of the material was created’
Title - Terminology - Nature of the Archival Unit
Question for DACS/Adlib members: Concerning the use of ‘papers’, ’records’, ‘collection’, 'aggregated collection', 'archive' in titles. Is there a requirement for a statement?
See DACS 2.3.19: ‘Titles should be constructed in a coherent and consistent format according to the rules of the individual institution’
Title – Terminology - Form
Question for DACS/Adlib members: Is there a need to provide a reference to a preferred source or to provide a list of definitions, or is it enough to point to the existing list provided for extent?
See DACS 2.3.20 and footnote: 'Repositories are strongly encouraged to use standardized vocabulary when describing form(s) of material as part of the devised title'
Question for DACS/Adlib members: Concerning collections of multiple forms – should the use of 'and other material' be left to cataloguer’s discretion? See DACS: 2.3.21: ...Use of ‘and other material’.
Title – Option - Topic
Question for DACS/Adlib members: Concerning the option to include a topic in a title. Is advice required or should this be left to cataloguers’ discretion?
See DACS 2.3.22: 'Optionally, devise a brief term or phrase that most precisely and concisely characterizes the unit being described'.
@Suzanne007 @Suzette-B @DACSAdlib @Meredith007 @AnnP007 @janamanda007