Future work

[elizhobart]

A few folks have highlighted some specific areas that will need to be revisited during the editorial group review. This ticket will serve as a parking lot for those issues. If you encounter anything that doesn't need immediately resolution but you'd like the group to watch for during our review, please put them here.

[mjmascaro]

There seems to be some inconsistency on when instructions on making a note on transposition are included with specific cataloging instructions or whether there is an instruction at the beginning of the element to cover them all. (See Example. This something that would be good to watch out for and look at holistically during full text review.

[elizhobart]

In discussion of color content (#33 ), we felt that including instructions on MARC coding were valuable, specifically recording an unstructured description in 300 $b and an optional structured description in 340 $g. However, this can't be included in the main DCRMR text, as DCRMR is metadata standard-neutral. Flagging this to add to a future application profile or similar tool.

[mjmascaro]

Similar to above comment, in discussion of edition statements that do not apply to the whole manifestation (#32),in DCRMR had MARC example for how to use 250 $3 to indicate which particular volume of a multipart monograph a particular edition statement appeared on. Example revised to more coding agnostic, but specific encoding example maybe included in another tool?

[mjmascaro]

DCRM(B) 2C4 (Statements of responsibility related to edition in more than one language or script) included instructions related to ISBD order that did not get carried over into DCRMR main text, since trying to be more ISBD agnostic. Perhaps, this can be included in another tool.

[mjmascaro]

Precataloging decisions (DCRM(B) X) is one of the preliminaries that is slated to be completed after the initial round of DCRMR. There are two alternative rules in Designation of edition related to creating descriptions for individual impressions, state, etc. that in the DCRM(B) rule they were based on had a reference to X.1.4 from the preliminary section that will need to be crossed back when that section is written.

[jess-grz]

Portions of DCRM(B) Appendix F (Title access points) cover Preferred title of expression (1F1-1F2, first half of 1G1-1G8, and 7B11). We will address at a later time. (See #16)

[rarebkcat]

Eventually, we're going to need to re-do our charts for Early letterforms and Brevigraphs -- they're beginning to lose sharpness in the on-line environment/display.

We might want to consider using embedded images (ex. y^e and formatting it as a table. However, that's a future discussion.

[deborahjleslie]

Manifestations without titles

I would like the group eventually to consider whether to expand and encourage the use of devised titles proper when the manifestation in hand doesn't have a recognizable title. By recognizable title I mean A word or sequence of words appearing in the manifestation that is clearly intended to name it. Single-sheet publications, including poems, songs, proclamations and such are the main suspects, but there are also manifestations such as that addressed by dcrmb 1B3.3, Title proper consisting solely of the name of a responsible body.

1B5, No title [previously No title proper] gives instructions on what to transcribe when you don't have a title, which is generally to use the opening lines of text. This is okay with poems, and possibly with proclamations, but not for a lot of other things. Instructions are expanded in 1G2, on Single-sheet manifestations. Personally, I think we could eliminate a special section on single-sheet publications and integrate the rules into other elements.

[rarebkcat]

Currently, in transcription we have a reference to the LC PCC PS 1.7.5, "Symbols." That reference will need to be updated with the next iteration of the LC PCC Policy Statements are published.

[rarebkcat]

When editing instructions post-publication, we need to think through versioning and how to (if to) explicitly indicate that an instruction was edited. (Keeper note to self: look at GitHub versioning in practice and think from there.)

[deborahjleslie]

Parallel title proper needs a proper rewrite, now that it's been narrowed from Parallel title.

@jess-grz and @lizoknj agreed with me on a rewrite of certain instructions to make them clearer, and I've fiddled with examples. In some cases I've intentionally departed from the example protocols in terms of including other elements in hopes of making the examples make sense.

[deborahjleslie]

Eventually, we're going to need to re-do our charts for Early letterforms and Brevigraphs -- they're beginning to lose sharpness in the on-line environment/display.

We might want to consider using embedded images (ex. ye and formatting it as a table. However, that's a future discussion.

I just ran across a CD with the original images. I can send that to the editors if that might help.

[deborahjleslie]

Substantive rewriting needed for Single-sheet manifestations

Related to https://github.com/rbms-bsc/DCRMR/issues/94. Not sure if integration of instructions for single-sheet manifestations, in DCRM(B) occupying its own section at the end of Area 1, is going to be viable for a minimum viable product; adding it to Future work.

[deborahjleslie]

Addition to Title of item

Add an instruction for optionally adding the title of a blank form that has been completed in manuscript. See 1.26.4.10 Title proper with an interpolated blank

[rarebkcat]

I just ran across a CD with the original images. I can send that to the editors if that might help.

Hi, Deborah -- That would be useful!

I can email you my mailing address, if that works? Unless you wanted to pull them off and upload them yourself?

-Amy

[rarebkcat]

Transcription -- Key Designations was removed as being a discrete section of format-specific text. Review and add back in when DCRM(Music) is incorporated.

Text, including coding (Sept. 22, 2020):

### 0.5.18 Key designations

<a name="0.5.18.1">0.5.18.1</a> Transcribe accidentals (flat and sharp signs, etc.) directly following the key letters being modified. Do not insert a space. 

>Example:  
><CITE>A&#9837; major</CITE>

<a name="0.5.18.2">0.5.18.2</a> If minor keys are represented by lowercase letters in the chief source, transcribe them as lowercase. Otherwise, record any letter(s) representing the key in uppercase.

Text: Key designations

Transcribe accidentals (flat and sharp signs, etc.) directly following the key letters being modified. Do not insert a space.

Example: A♭ major

If minor keys are represented by lowercase letters in the chief source, transcribe them as lowercase. Otherwise, record any letter(s) representing the key in uppercase.

[rarebkcat]

DCMR(C) - Dedications

When working on Transcription, I found that the RBMS PS had some instructions re: dedications at RBMS PS 2.3.4.1 that are no longer present in DCRMR. (The RBMS PS instructions for transcription had a reference to the instructions at 2.3.4.1.)

Michelle provided the following context:

The DCRM Steering Group (body that was reconciling differences between the different DCRM modules) discussed in 2014 some changes to treat dedications due to recommendations brought up by Cartographics. Ultimately, Cartographics was granted a format exception to record grammatically inseparable dedications in a note versus other title information.

• http://dcrmsteeringgroup.pbworks.com/w/page/75430316/Discussion%20topic%3A%20Dedications
• The RBMS PS did include a mock-up of how dedications are treated differently for cartographic and graphics (which had format specific reason to adopt C’s treats.) versus books https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lsD58Nb0dmVYe_VRqYVunqcby0VsoqZZOoiM-Twonoo/edit#bookmark=id.gkfwock3owi1

Since for books dedications on title pages are not silently omitted, they are not called out in DCRMB4 0G5.2. (See DCRM errata http://dcrmedits.pbworks.com/w/page/69463439/Area%200%20errata and DCRMB4 Issues http://dcrmedits.pbworks.com/w/page/135454965/Issues%3A%20DCRMB4)

When future DCRM manuals are incorporated with DCRMR, the instructions for dedications in the RBMS PS will likely need to be re-visited/re-integrated.

[elizhobart]

Instruction for speech balloons removed from transcription, as it is specifically related to graphics. Make sure this is re-added when Graphics is incorporated.

Update: This has been added to the draft.

[elizhobart]

3.21.34.1: for internal review, a decision was made to remove this sentence pending further discussion:

Transcribe edition statements not grammatically linked to another element as individual statements. Indicate the work to which each edition statement corresponds in a Note on edition statement (see 3.26.33.1)

Previously, a suggestion had been made to record this information in successive 250 fields with $3. However, there are a few issues with including this instruction now, including:

• "Grammatically linked" is not defined
• This sentence contradicts the prior instruction
• We have no real-world or in-text examples illustrating this

Edit: We'll also need to consider the related notes instruction, which I am also recommending deleting for now:

3.26.33 Two or more works on the preferred source of information with at least one Edition statement 3.26.33.1 If the preferred source of information bears the titles of two or more individual works contained in the manifestation, and one or more of these works has an Edition statement associated with it that is not grammatically linked to another element and has been transcribed as individual Edition statements, make a note on edition statement indicating the work to which each edition statement corresponds (see 3.21.34.1). Example: Note on edition statement: 4th edition of Winnipeg Manitoba street atlas, new edition of Manitoba back road atlas. Title statement: Winnipeg & Manitoba street atlas ; Manitoba back road atlas Edition statement (1st work): 4th edition Edition statement (2nd work): New edition, includes street atlas (Comment: Two works printed on inverted pages. No collective title page; individual titles transcribed from front and back cover.)

In the interest of moving forward, I am suggesting deletion from the draft, but would like to continue discussion.

[elizhobart]

3.21.37.1: For internal review, we removed an instruction to record information in encoded data or in a note, instructing catalogers instead to just record in a note. The PS draft had made some use of encoded data and MARC examples, but this was the only place in DCRMR that did. To bring into line with the rest of the text, we decided to remove it for now, but want to keep this on the table for the future.

Original sentence:

If the manifestation was issued as such, transcribe all edition statements. Indicate the edition statements corresponding to individual volumes through encoded data and/or a Note on edition statement (see 3.26.36.1).

Edited:

If the manifestation was issued as such, transcribe all edition statements. Indicate the edition statements corresponding to individual volumes in a Note on edition statement (see 3.26.36.1).

[elizhobart]

6.355.31.1: when adding Graphics, make sure "Details of mount" is added after "Details of applied material" with link to this element.

Update: This has been added to the draft.

[elizhobart]

6.23.3 Color content: when additional formats are incorporated (Graphics), it won't make sense to have a general rule focused on illustrations. Leaving as is for now.

Update: Suggested rewording in the draft.

[rarebkcat]

0.4.92.2 removed, awaiting Graphics.

0.4.92.2 Still images. Consider layout, color, size, and other graphic factors to determine whether text is visually inseparable. Example: Portrait of an Irish chief, drawn from life at Wexford (Comment: Size and location of lettering on material visually indicate that “drawn from life at Wexford” is part of a satiric title and not a Statement of responsibility relating to title proper

Update: This has been added to the draft.

[elizhobart]

Note: as of February 25, 2021, all graphics-related issues mentioned to date have been added to the draft text.

[elizhobart]

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.

[elizhobart]

Language in examples for library copies should be examined and instructions clarified. Currently, some examples have generic phrase "Library's copy" (see 0.4.64.2), while others are more specific (e.g., "Indiana University Library copy," 9.4.34.1). A BSC reviewer commented at 9.41.3.2: "it might be good to put examples related to multiple copy situations. For example, we do "Rubenstein Library copy 2" for second copies. This might be outside the scope of what you're hoping to do." For post-BSC review, we felt this was out of scope, but agreed that it merited a closer look post-review.

[elizhobart]

2.21.355.1: some disagreement to this instruction raised in BSC review, with comment: "I think it should be "if considered too numerous."" Since this instruction is carried over from DCRM(B), the revisions group elected to flag for future review rather than incorporate the change at this time.

[elizhobart]

When appendix B is added, reinsert this instruction in chapter 1:

1.25.3595 Variant titles of a collection (optional) 1.25.3595.1 Record variant titles by which a collection may be known if they differ substantially from the Title proper and provide useful access points. If most or all of the items in the collection have the same title information and it is considered important, make an added access point for the title.

Explanation: since this instruction specifically pertains to collection-level records and appendix B has not yet been added, the use of "collection" caused confusion in the BSC review. The revisions subgroup decided to remove the instruction for the time being.

[elizhobart]

1.21.385.1: In response to this sentence: "If there are two or more manifestations printed on a single sheet and each has its own publication, distribution, or manufacture statement, or there is other conclusive evidence that they were intended to be separately issued," a BSC reviewer stated, "I'm not sure that a separate "publication, distribution, or manufacture" is enough to count as conclusive evidence." This instruction was pulled from DCRM(B) 1G8 and will need closer consideration before updating.

[elizhobart]

Suggestion from BSC reviewers to add DCRMR elaborations of scope to chapter 1: "I find the RDA definition and scope for titles pretty opaque (when it's really not!). Including a heading for DCRMR Elaboration on scope for Chapter 1 would be really helpful."

[elizhobart]

Instructions from 1.21.372 to 1.21.382.2 need a closer look and possible rewrite. See comments from BSC reviewers on chapter 1.

Note: a reviewer noted that 1.21.372 is not an option in either the original or post-3R Toolkit. This is an option in the post-3R Toolkit in Title of manifestation, Titles of aggregates section:

CONDITION A manifestation is an aggregate. A collective title does not appear in a source of information. OPTION Record a value that is a devised title.

[elizhobart]

For now, deleting these instructions from Title proper:

1.21.39 Access points for title proper 1.21.39.1 Title access plays an important role in enabling users to identify and locate special collections materials. Provide access for the entire title proper exactly as transcribed, disregarding initial articles as required by filing rules (see Title of manifestation, 1.2.32). 1.21.39.2 For instructions on providing access points for variants of the title proper, see Variant title of manifestation (1.25.35).

This was creating confusion for reviewers, since this reads as instructions just to record the title proper in the 245. Jessica noted: "This is a holdover from Appendix F. Technically, we transcribe the title proper in the 245 as it appears. But in MARC this is also acting as an access point, and the use of the 2nd indicator allows for the omission of initial articles from indexing. I know that the placement of the instruction looks a bit odd here, since it's no longer in the separate appendix and has lost some of that original context. But I'm not sure where else to put this." Since it was causing confusion, the revisions group decided to remove for now and reconsider if it should be added earlier in chapter 1 later.

[elizhobart]

Instructions with "make a note on ..." should be reviewed for consistency. Some instructions use "justify," others "give the basis." These should be more normalized.

[elizhobart]

Request from BSC reviewer to reconsider instructions for recording decades and centuries (e.g., 5.23.34.1): Can BSC revisit this, in light of the fact that RDA doesn't treat decades and centuries differently (you just supply the "year" so a "decade" is any ten year period, not the ten year period where the 3rd digit is the same). Rare materials reason for deviation: if you give specific years (e.g., "between 1600 and 1700") when what you mean is "17th century" you lose the implied vagueness of the phrase. Consider instead how Catloging Cultural Objects (CCO) rules separate "Display date" from the machine-readable "Earliest and Latest Dates". See in particular "Decades and Centuries" on p. 174, which says "Qualify decades or centuries with early, mid-, and late, as warranted. Assign appropriate Earliest and Latest Dates by dividing the decade or century into thirds (for example, late 18th century may be indexed as Earliest: 1770, Latest: 1799),unless this formula is contradicted by available information."

[elizhobart]

Need to further investigate phrasing of note, particularly around constructions where we give instructions on information contained in a note (such as "explanatory note" or "to give the basis of"). This phrasing varies.

[elizhobart]

Create an appendix for PPDM to provide information on dating systems, roles of publishers/booksellers, etc. In the BSC review, one review suggested adding significant historical information at 5.23.31.5 (see chapter 5 GDoc). The Revisions Subgroup felt this was too much detail for an instruction but agreed on the importance of the information, so we are flagging for future inclusion in an appendix. In addition, some of the detail currently in 5.23.31.5 on Julian/Old Style dates may need to be moved to this appendix, but we are leaving it where it is for now. Note: a BSC reviewer noted that our assertion regarding Great Britain use of Lady Day dating is incorrect: "For example, Scotland officially dropped Lady Day dating after 31 December 1599, but kept the Julian calendar until 2 September 1752."

[elizhobart]

Revisit decisions in PPDM (e.g., 5.21.34.1) to give place of publication of later parts in a note. As Deborah noted in post-BSC review, we are now able to repeat these elements and with "well-formed data," places after the first should be transcribed in their proper element.

[elizhobart]

Citation styles: BSC reviewers note that currently format for citations is unclear. The issue isn't fully covered in instructions and examples are inconsistent (for example, "Printed by Thomas Harper for John Parker according to STC"). A reviewer notes: "the citation styles will need to be really clear in the notes. The SCF exists for a reason, and we should further standardize how things are cited in a note when we also include a full citation for a resource."

[elizhobart]

Extent of manifestation needs instructions on what to do when leaves of plates are included in pagination. This is currently lacking in DCRM(B), too, so flagging for future work.

[elizhobart]

Request from BSC reviewers to add instructions/examples for instances where illustrations are labeled "plates" but are not equal to physical plates, such as when there are [12] physical leaves of plates printed on one side, but illustrations are labelled Plate I-Plate XVII.

[elizhobart]

Phrasing is inconsistent in instructions to make a note. As a BSC reviewer commented: "while "Note on extent ..." already specifies note in its name, it seems inconsistent to not use similar language in this section-- something like "record in a note on Details of illustrative content" -- conversely, you could use "note" in both instances with the appropriate "(see Element, Rule number)" throughout the document."

[elizhobart]

We need to add a bibliography and make sure we specify which edition of Gaskell we're citing.

[elizhobart]

Reconcile current text with current edition of Chicago. (For example, a recent error was caught with "Ph. D."; Chicago removed the space several editions ago.)

[elizhobart]

Notes: need to make a principles distinction for when notes will always be required and not. (For example, notes on transposition and notes on sources of information should likely always be required.) Also need to review all notes elements and make sure they are all flagged as "always" or "if considered important," as appropriate.

[lizoknj]

Would notes needed to justify a main or added entry (creator or contributor name) when the name does not appear in the description constitute another required category of note? I just noticed that a note isn't required for attributions (see 2.29.33 below). I was assuming that the attributed name was accepted as correct, and would therefore appear as a main or added entry--but may be misinterpreting. Confused. 2.29.33 Attributions

2.29.33.1 If a statement of responsibility for a person or corporate body connected with the resource does not appear in the manifestation, and an attribution is available, give the information in a Nnote on statement of responsibility if considered important. Include the authority for the attribution whenever possible.

2.29.33 Attributions

2.29.33.1 If a statement of responsibility for a person or corporate body connected with the resource does not appear in the manifestation, and an attribution is available, give the information in a Nnote on statement of responsibility if considered important. Include the authority for the attribution whenever possible.

On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 8:36 AM elizhobart @.***> wrote:

Notes: need to make a principles distinction for when notes will always be required and not. (For example, notes on transposition and notes on sources of information should likely always be required.) Also need to review all notes elements and make sure they are all flagged as "always" or "if considered important," as appropriate.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/rbms-bsc/DCRMR/issues/36#issuecomment-871364909, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APXYAEZSIQW3LLWU4IP3TDLTVMFUHANCNFSM4PCVZSQA .

[deborahjleslie]

Liz, I would say no. I think it's a good idea to limit required notes to elements relating to transcription and physical description (in MARCspeak, 245, 250, 26x, 300), but not to elements that elaborate description or provide identification.

[lizoknj]

This is a tough one for me to understand, because I was always taught that a main or added entry had to be justified by a note if the creator/contributor name didn't appear in the 245 or elsewhere in the description (otherwise catalogue users would be scratching their heads and saying who the heck is this person in the Author field?). Is a justifiying note not required for rare book cataloging because it has to do with an access point, as opposed to the body of the description, so out of scope? Or because there is now the option to use a relator term, Attributed name? Or am I just misinterpreting the situation described in the rule (all too possible, alas!).

Liz

On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 2:36 PM Deborah J Leslie @.***> wrote:

Liz, I would say no. I think it's a good idea to limit required notes to those regarding elements relating to transcription and physical description (in MARCspeak, 245, 26x, 300), but not to elements that elaborate description or provide identification.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/rbms-bsc/DCRMR/issues/36#issuecomment-871637894, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APXYAE5EQPMXC7365W4FGE3TVNPZHANCNFSM4PCVZSQA .

[deborahjleslie]

You're interpreting the situation correctly, Liz. It was not required in DCRM(B), and probably not in its predecessors (don't have access to DCRB or BDRB). Presumably not required because it's an access point. What you were taught may have reflected standard practice (which it is) or local or LC policy.

FWIW, not only is this a note that I always make, I also always make a note if a work is anonymous and we don't know who the author is.

I can give more background if desired on the impetus behind sharply limiting the number of mandatory notes in DCRM(B) if desired, but can be boiled down to not overburdening institutions who do not have the resources to do full-on DCRB cataloging and/or those whose administrators were putting pressure on "speeding up" rare materials cataloging in the context of the growing "hidden collections" stormcloud.

[lizoknj]

Thanks for the explanation, Deborah. I'm relieved that I wasn't making some embarrassing mistake about what the instructions meant. I can live with this instruction not being mandatory, since I imagine most catalogers will add the note anyway.

Liz

On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 5:04 PM Deborah J Leslie @.***> wrote:

You're interpreting the situation correctly, Liz. It was not required in DCRM(B), and probably not in its predecessors (don't have access to DCRB or BDRB). Presumably not required because it's an access point. What you were taught may have reflected standard practice (which it is) or local or LC policy.

FWIW, not only is this a note that I always make, I also always make a note if a work is anonymous and we don't know who the author is.

I can give more background if desired on the impetus behind sharply limiting the number of mandatory notes in DCRM(B) if desired, but can be boiled down to not overburdening institutions who do not have the resources to do full-on DCRB cataloging and/or those whose administrators were putting pressure on "speeding up" rare materials cataloging in the context of the growing "hidden collections" stormcloud.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/rbms-bsc/DCRMR/issues/36#issuecomment-871726234, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APXYAEYDBMINLVCZPDAIONDTVOBGBANCNFSM4PCVZSQA .

[elizhobart]

Consider adding the term "sammelband" to the text. Since publication of DCRM(B), "sammelband" has become more widely used and recognized.