1.21.372.1 option 2, 1.21.384.1, 1.21.385.1: during BSC review of DCRMR, some objections were raised to the practice of creating separate metadata descriptions for different expressions embodied in a manifestation. These instructions were carried over from DCRM(B) 1F2, 1G7, and 1G8. In the spirit of MVP and in keeping with our practice of not changing instructions from DCRM(B) unless there's an RDA-specific reason or a decision from a prior group, we are leaving these as is for now but want to flag for reconsideration with future edits.
Additional comment on 1.21.385.1 from reviewer: I could see a scenario where the expressions were initially intended to be separate but then later intended to be printed together and the printer never updated the statements. I think this rule is assuming a lot more order in the publication/printing process than there actually was. This could legitimately be it's own manifestation and the record should reflect that. I think this would be a cataloger's judgement call and should not be a formal rule.
Note: This issue was originally posted by @elizhobart on 25 May 2021 as a comment on issue #36, which was created as a catch-all for issues related to future development. For ease of tracking, the comments have been moved to their own individual issues and tagged as "future work."
1.21.372.1 option 2, 1.21.384.1, 1.21.385.1: during BSC review of DCRMR, some objections were raised to the practice of creating separate metadata descriptions for different expressions embodied in a manifestation. These instructions were carried over from DCRM(B) 1F2, 1G7, and 1G8. In the spirit of MVP and in keeping with our practice of not changing instructions from DCRM(B) unless there's an RDA-specific reason or a decision from a prior group, we are leaving these as is for now but want to flag for reconsideration with future edits.
Additional comment on 1.21.385.1 from reviewer: I could see a scenario where the expressions were initially intended to be separate but then later intended to be printed together and the printer never updated the statements. I think this rule is assuming a lot more order in the publication/printing process than there actually was. This could legitimately be it's own manifestation and the record should reflect that. I think this would be a cataloger's judgement call and should not be a formal rule.
Note: This issue was originally posted by @elizhobart on 25 May 2021 as a comment on issue #36, which was created as a catch-all for issues related to future development. For ease of tracking, the comments have been moved to their own individual issues and tagged as "future work."