[Note: This is the draft that was discussed at the public hearing at ALA Annual 2013 on Saturday, June 29, 6-8pm, at the Hyatt Regency Chicago, Skyway 260].
1B1.1. (largely, the issue of transposing information from scattered elements on maps)
To accommodate the tendency of maps to have scattered elements, it was suggested by a DCRM(G) member that we look at their 1B1.1 text (in addition to the text in CM that we already identified). We need more instruction on preference for taking information from scattered elements; see Graphic's 1B1; also review CM's more robust application for 1B9.
See Steering Committee discussion
1B2.1/1B4.1
Deborah Leslie agreed that the sentence "Title information preceding the chief title on the chief source of information is considered part of the title proper" is problematic, not just for DCRM(C) but also DCRM(B) and that maybe it should be limited to "grammatically inseparable" situations. Also, in the 1B4.1 example in DCRM(B) and DCRM(C), she agreed with us that "Prize ..." should not be considered part of the title proper.
TF: Rule revised/example removed
"Edition vs. State": not really sure what was meant by that, but it must have come out of something mentioned by DCRM(G) member.
TF: I'm not sure how to handle this or if we really want to go down the path of defining "state" ... 3/23/14
Diagram describing folded/double leaves might be helpful; more instruction on the distinction between double leaves and double plates.
TF: Although having an additional diagram would be great, I don't know how we'd add it to the diagrams we took from CM; any ideas? More instruction on the distinction between the two would be easier to provide. 3/23/14
MT: Glossary definitions have been made more explicit. 11/16/14
It was pointed out that we had conflicting instructions for how to handle maps in pockets in atlases (300 $b vs $e). But we had already discovered that and decided to use 300 $b (but see discussion under 5E2 for Area 5 for distinction between issued in pocket and accompanying material).
TF: Rule revised
It was suggested we add an example showing a span of series numbering (e.g. 490 $v pt. 20-24).
[Note: I subsequently found an example we could use: http://oskicat.berkeley.edu/record=b11191147~S1]
But, it made we wonder: If we add this example, do we need to add an instruction as well? We don't have one currently (nor does DCRM(B) - the series instructions were left intentionally brief in DCRM(B) because the LCRIs for series were so incredibly long and we didn't want to duplicate them all). Adding an instruction would probably mean bumping this issue up to the DCRM Steering Group (because this is not a map-specific situation). It might also call into question whether other series issues would also need to be addressed.]
TF: I suggest we ignore the suggestion, as it will quickly get much too complicated, especially if it has to go to the Steering Group. 3/24/14
Results of a straw poll on whether to treat these as monographs vs. collections:
monographs=12
collection=2
undecided=4
A DCRM(G) member suggested that we look at their collection-level appendix because they encountered something similar. A DCRM(MSS) member said they hadn't yet discussed how to handle composite manuscripts but thought they would probably treat them as monographs. Because composite atlases are in most cases unique, if they are treated as monographs, then would they be treated as unpublished material? Whereas if they are treated as collections, collections are pretty much by definition unique but often made up of published material, right? Would that have any effect on whether we guide people to treat composite atlases as monographs versus collections?
See the wiki discussion for Appendix N
MT: Treated as monographs
It was suggested we add a full record example with full MARC coding for analytics and in-analytics, to clarify use of 260 versus no 260 but 77x.
TF: I'm not sure I understand what is being asked for here. 3/24/14
MT: The issue with the 260 field seems to result from a conflation of two different analytic methods. If you are using the "In" analytic method, as we are here, CM says you do include a 260 field. But if you are using the multilevel description method (as we are in Appendix Q3.4), you don't include a 260 field in the Level 2 description if the 260 in the Level 1 description applies to all the Level 2 descriptions.
Contains many terms that also appear in DCRM(G), but the definitions don't always agree
RSB: This may or may not be a problem, but it is probably something we should look into; we can always include multiple definitions for a single term, if necessary. If differences necessary for definitions/use of terms from one format to another, the terms can be qualified in a unified glossary (e.g., state (cartographic material) and state (graphics).
MT: Included multiple definitions as needed, though wording not necessarily the same as for DCRM(G)
Tasks completed prior to public hearing at ALA Annual:
1. Compile a list of discussion lists and individuals to whom we'd like to send the public draft announcement [Group ];
2. Pull together a summary of deviations from CM and rationales why DCRM(C) is deviating from CM [Nancy];
3. Pull together a summary of deviations from DCRM(B) and rationales why DCRM(C) is deviating from (B) [Manon];
4. Compile a list of rules for which we're having trouble finding examples in case others can help [Todd];
6. Compile a list of questions on which we'd especially like feedback [Group];
7. Compile a list of questions we can expect to be asked and how we'd like to answer [Group ];
8. Create an outline of who on our committee will be presenting what at the hearing and how long each person will need [Todd];
- (possibly) be able to explain why we're issuing AACR2-based rules rather than RDA-based rules and what our plans are for RDA alternatives.