Minutes

 

Bibliographic Standards Committee Manuscripts Working Group

 

ALA Annual Conference 2008

 

Monday, June 30, 2008, 1:30-5:30 p.m.

 

Disneyland Hotel, Wonder Executive Board Room

 

 

 

 

Members: Diane Ducharme, Yale University; Kate Moriarty, Saint Louis University (recorder); Liz O’Keefe, Morgan Library & Museum; Margaret Nichols, Cornell University (chair).

 

 

 

Visitors: John Attig, Penn State University; Erin Blake, Folger Shakespeare Library; Randal Brandt, University of California, Berkeley; Alison Bridger, Folger Shakespeare Library (representing members Heather Wolfe and Jenny Nelson); Ellen Cordes, Lewis Walpole Library, Yale University; Deborah Cribbs, St. Louis Mercantile Library; Jane Gillis, Yale University; Deborah J. Leslie, Folger Shakespeare Library; Stephen Skuce, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Manon Theroux, George Mason University; Helena Zinkham, Library of Congress.

 

 

 

M. Nichols called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. and reviewed the charge.

 

 

 

There was discussion of these rules serving as a bridging standard between the ISAD(G) framework of DACS and the ISBD framework of DCRM(B). The archival community envisions the creation of companion standards for form material that will provide more detailed instructions for processing, and hopes that our document will serve as such a companion standard. There is also an expectation that it will fit as a DCRM module and that we will use the same text as DCRM(B) and (S) where we can. For example, in some appendixes, DCRM(S) has used identical wording to DCRM(B) but inserted different examples.

 

 

 

M. Nichols asked the previous editors present if they had any advice for the Working Group. There was discussion regarding the handling of version control of the document. The wiki archives changes, do we also want to be able to distinguish between distinct drafts? Should we have a parallel clean document that does not include our comments? Eventually, we will need to turn it into a Word document and apply the style sheets of previous DCRM modules. We should budget a significant amount of time for this step. The DCRM(G) editors have upgraded to pbwiki 2.0 which can convert documents to Word.

 

 

 

Other suggestions included: write a clear scope statement; expect challenges arising from creating a bridging document between two standards; use plain text rather than color fonts to indicate omissions, next steps, etc.; flag and take notes on terms that will need to be defined in the glossary; as we identify things that need to be done, start a task list and give assignments for each task; we will probably need to meet in addition to ALA-scheduled meetings; send the URL and give permission to view the wiki to all DCRM editors and Bib Standards members; should we have liaisons among the different DCRM groups?

 

 

 

A question was asked regarding the interaction between DCRM(MSS) and AMREMM. What does Gregory Pass think about recent developments? A. Bridger, D. Ducharme, and others stated that he had been approached and appears to be fine with the current direction.

 

 

 

Editorial Guidelines

 

R. Brandt presented several editorial issues. An outline of the issues and discussion follow.

 

 

 

Scheduling of editorial meetings at ALA:

We currently have two editorial team slots scheduled for a half-day each. Do we need more time? Several ideas were presented, but our limitations are the following: we are not able to meet on Friday in case members want to attend an ALA preconference (not the RBMS Preconference), nor on Saturday or Sunday because of the main ALA program, nor Monday mornings because of the Executive Meeting. Most agreed to schedule simultaneous meetings in separate rooms Monday afternoon and Tuesday. For the Denver and Chicago meetings we will schedule 1.5 days for Manuscripts and 2 days for Graphics. Internet access for the rooms will be a formal request from now on. Expectations of editorial team members: being present at meetings is crucial; if members are unable to make ALA meetings we will need to schedule meetings outside of that time. We will try to schedule a meeting for the fall.

 

 

 

Editing guidelines:

DCRM editorial guidelines exist and will be put on the ALA wiki with a link from the RBMS web page. Everyone is asked to look at them once they are posted. Different formats may have a separate set of supplementary guidelines (e.g. MSS would use the term “manuscripts”). Instructions on creating supplementary guidelines will be determined at a later date.

 

 

 

[Subsequent to the MWG  meeting, a wiki for DCRM editorial guidelines was created: http://wikis.ala.org/acrl/index.php/DCRM_Editorial_Guidelines]

 

 

 

 

 

M. Nichols asked whether members of the DCRM(MSS) team should plan on attending the DCRM(G) editorial team meetings. E. Blake mentioned that decisions made at DCRM(G) meetings will be posted on the wiki and can be commented on.

 

 

 

M. Nichols proposed the following approach for this meeting: do a first edit of the text from the wiki starting with Area 0, referring to other standards primarily when there is mention of them in our document. It was also suggested that we document decisions to diverge from AMREMM and DACS. Additionally, we will start a list of issues for further discussion which can be a continual working document. K. Moriarty will record decisions and edits and forward them to J. Nelson.

 

 

 

Changes to the Text & Related Discussion:

 

0A. Scope

 

Include:

1.      Rules are for item-level description

2.      Date range of the materials, “post-1600” with the proviso that they may apply to earlier manuscripts but, for the most part, use AMREMM for pre-1600 manuscripts

3.      Rules apply to material of any language

4.      Types of documents covered: codices, legal documents, individual documents within archival collections, see the APPM 1.0A list: letters, diaries, ledgers, minutes, speeches, marked or corrected galley or page proofs, manuscript books, legal papers … [including] photographic, microfilm, etc.

a.       Decide what documents not covered are worth mentioning: manuscript maps, manuscript music, manuscript serials; theses? See the APPM 1.0A list.

5.      Relationship to other standards

6.      Keep the DCRM(B) sentence “They cover instructions for the descriptive areas in bibliographic records only (see also introductory sections I-II).”

 

 

 

Other discussion on 0A:

What about scrapbooks and albums? Are photo albums considered graphic material? Is our scope limited to textual? There are many cases where one would want to catalog photos using our rules because they have manuscript notes on them. E. Blake suggested including in the introduction a section on when to use these rules which would address that question (photos with ms. notes).

 

 

 

What about born digital? We can exclude mention of this in the scope and address it in Appendix A: MARC 21 Descriptive Conventions Code or we can explicitly say we do not cover born digital documents.

 

We also discussed digital reproductions and agreed that they fall under our scope. We could include here a list of methods of reproduction, using APPM's 1.0A as a starting point: "For the purpose of this manual, these materials may exist in original handwritten or typescript form, letter-press or carbon copies, or photographic or mechanical reproduction, including photostat, microfilm, or facsimile."

 

 

 

0B. The basic description

 

 

 

 

0B1. Required elements

 

There was extensive discussion on which elements should be required vs. which are best practice. It was suggested that we clarify for ourselves the distinction between the two when choosing elements for this section.

 

 

 

The Scope & contents note in particular engendered debate. DACS requires it and it is often used in item-level description, but there were also arguments that this is a best practice, not a requirement. One suggestion was to decide now whether or not to include it as part of the required elements and change our minds as we go (this happened frequently with DCRM(S)). We decided to come back to this at a later date.

 

 

 

In reviewing the other DACS minimum elements it was decided that the required elements will be: Title, Date, and Extent. The elements Reference code, Conditions governing access, and Language and scripts of the material will not be required. No decision on Name and location of repository and Name of creator(s)?

 

 

 

We will keep the three corresponding DCRM(B) required elements and will exclude Size.

 

 

 

Other discussion on 0B1:

J. Attig made the point that we can emphasize, in other parts of the rules, elements to include in the record. For instance, access points are addressed in the appendixes, other elements can be included in the introduction.

 

 

 

M. Nichols raised the question: do we assume these rules are for item-level description either in a MARC record or within a finding aid? DACS does so in its rules. It was suggested that we focus on the item and have an appendix that addresses item-level records within a larger finding aid. We might also want to have an appendix on EAD and possibly one with examples as DACS does. Appendix A-G will be the same in every manual but we can add manuscript-specific appendixes starting with H. For Appendix B: Collection-Level Records, we could simply say: for collection-level records use DACS; for other appendixes: no general use of this appendix is made for manuscripts (see DCRM(S) wording).

 

 

 

Another question raised was do we assume the rules are being used for MARC records? It was suggested that we avoid reference to particular metadata in the main body of the rules, but include MARC and other metadata in the appendixes.

 

 

 

In the wiki we have a reference in this section to APPM’s 1.0D Levels of detail. Do we want to do minimal-level records description? This was set aside for discussion at a later date. DCRM(B) includes discussion in the introduction.

 

 

 

Finally, since context is important with manuscript material, it was suggested that we cover that somewhere in the rules.

 

 

 

0B2. Basis of the description

 

 

0B2.1. General rule.

 

Keep as is in wiki.

 

 

 

0B2.2. “Base the description of each specific area as follows …”

Strike this section, it duplicates 0D.

 

 

 

0C. Chief source of information

 

 

0C1. Single title page

 

 

0C1.1.

 

Keep as the title page if there is one. In the case of no title page examine DCRM(B) vs. APPM 1.0B1. If we decide to use the list in APPM 1.0B1, consider moving “d) a published edition of the collection/item” higher in the priorities.

 

 

 

0C1.2.

 

Strike this paragraph.

 

 

 

0C2. Multiple title pages

 

Include this rule but list different criteria from those (a-g) in DCRM(B). Keep (b) and (f); strike (c). Change (e) to "If the manuscript has multiple title pages in different scripts, prefer the one that matches the text." Possibilities for (g): a title page contemporary with the rest of the manuscript should be chosen over one that is later. If two or more title pages are from the same period and have the same script, choose the first. Are there other situations?

 

 

 

The wording for the sentence beginning “Indicate in a note the source …” needs to be changed. We discussed having two branches

1.      Rules for manuscripts issued with a title page

2.      Rules for manuscripts without a title page

APPM does this well. We tabled this for discussion at a later date.

 

 

 

J. Attig: Are we talking about title pages that apply to the entire work, not section title pages? DCRM(B) & DCRM(S) were not explicit – do we need to be here?

 

 

 

 

 

0C3. No title page

 

There was extensive discussion of this rule but additional discussion and wording was tabled for later. If there is no title page, would we be using a title page substitute? J. Attig responded that it goes back to the conventions of the medium. He suggested making a clear distinction between those items with titles and those without. Non-title rules could follow title rules, for example.

 

 

 

Both DCRM(MSS) and DCRM(G) are interested in this issue. A suggestion was made to have someone draft a statement for this rule within the next two months so that there is discussion before the next meeting.

 

 

 

 

 

Supplied titles will be addressed in Area 1.

 

 

 

0D. Prescribed sources of information

 

To follow are discussion and ideas proposed, however we decided to revisit this section after we identify the chief source of information (0C).

 

 

 

For Area 1. Title and statement of responsibility, it was noted that AACR2 uses the chief source of information and published copies of the manuscript.

 

 

 

It was decided that we would call Area 2 “Edition,” not “Edition/Version.”

 

 

 

Area 3 is not applicable to manuscripts.

 

 

 

For Area 4, we will follow AACR2 and call it simply “Date.”

 

 

 

For Area 5, the suggestion was: “The whole manuscript or any other source.” It was suggested that we stick to the resource, but D. Ducharme mentioned the case of recon.

 

 

 

Area 7 stays as is.

 

 

 

Delete the penultimate paragraph (beginning “In all cases in which information …”). See if there are similar paragraphs in 0C to delete.

 

 

 

We will either delete the final sentence (beginning “The prescribed source of information for areas 1-6 of a single-sheet publication”) or at least revisit all uses of the term “single-sheet publication.”

 

 

 

After some discussion, it was generally decided to include language regarding always making a note on the source of the title proper. This is more in keeping with DCRM, particularly DCRM(S) (rule 1B2), than DACS.

 

 

 

0E. Prescribed punctuation

 

We decided not to make any decisions on this section for the time being, simply start discussion on it.

 

 

 

H. Zinkham stated that this could be one of the bridging areas between DCRM and DACS since it is difficult to understand ISBD punctuation in the context of unpublished material. She referred us to Gerald Stone, who explains this issue well.

 

 

 

We will need to address the use of square brackets. Do we use them? When? DACS does not assume transcription so does not use square brackets. One place AMREMM uses them is in dates. Most people agreed that it was better to explain the source of the date in a note than to use square brackets. We do want to use square brackets in the statement of extent to distinguish numbered from unnumbered pages.

 

 

 

0F. Language and script of the description

 

 

0F1. General rule

 

We deleted the Publication and Series areas from 0F1.1; the areas to be transcribed are Title and statement of responsibility, Edition, and Date. A question that came up is do we use the language of the manuscript in the date element? L. O’Keefe said the Morgan does and heavily uses “i.e.”

 

 

 

0G. Transcription

 

After a period of discussion it was determined that this is a section that needs to be revisited.

 

 

 

Arguments in favor of transcription are its function in reconstructing the source, that it is a cornerstone of DCRMB, and that it may save on wear and tear if users know the convention is transcription. Arguments against a lengthy rule on transcription are that transcription does not hold the same weight when applied to unique materials and that users of manuscripts do not draw the same conclusions from transcription as users of rare books.  

 

 

 

R. Brandt pointed out that DCRM(B)’s Appendix B instructs the cataloger to bracket a supplied title. We may need to revisit this as it is a significant difference between DCRM and DACS.

 

 

 

0G1. Letters, diacritics, and symbols

 

 

0G1.1. Letters and diacritics.

 

If we keep this section, use DCRM(S) as a guide rather than DCRM(B). The LCRI changed since publication of DCRM(B).

 

 

 

 

 

0G2.2. Letters i/j and u/v.

 

We need to revisit this – often the cataloger does not know if the letter is a “u” or a “v.”

 

 

 

0G2.4. Chronograms.

 

Chronograms do exist in manuscripts.

 

 

 

0G3. Punctuation in the source

 

We liked the “follow modern punctuation conventions, using common sense” sentence but decided to leave this section for a later date. J. Attig stated that DCRM(S) did not make many changes to this section. He suggested having one person look at it to determine what is not needed and note additional things that need to be addressed.

 

 

 

0G4. Spacing

 

It was observed that this issue comes up with graphics.

 

 

 

0G6.3. Lacunae in imperfect copies.

 

Rename this “Lacunae in defective [or imperfect] exemplars” for situations in which there is a hole in the paper. Possible phrasing: “If title information is missing, use the mark of omission …”

 

 

 

0G7. Misprints, etc.

 

 

0G7.1. Misprints.

 

Ideas for titles of this section were: “Misspellings,” “Variants and inaccuracies,” “Omissions and inaccuracies.” Both APPM and DCRM(B) instruct to transcribe. We decided to stick with the wording of DCRM(B), adapted for manuscripts.

 

 

 

0G7.2. Turned and approximated letters.

 

Strike out? Or not, because of galley proofs?

 

 

 

0G7.3. Blank spaces for initial letters.

 

For post-1600 mss this is primarily done with modern ones in the manuscript tradition, in which case AMREMM might be useful. Strike it out tentatively.

 

 

 

0G8. Abbreviations and contractions

 

 

0G8.1.

 

AACR instructs the cataloger to abbreviate, DACS and DCRM say do not abbreviate. The general consensus was that 0G8.1 looks good as is.

 

 

 

There was a discussion on the location of the date. In APPM and DACS the date goes after the title (245 |f). AMREMM and DCRM place it after the publisher (260 |c). This will be another bridging area between the two communities.

 

 

 

0G8.2.

 

Change our edit on the wiki to “… by the writer” (not scribe).

 

 

 

0G9. Superscripts and subscripts

 

Keep as is.

 

 

 

0G10. Initials, etc.

 

Keep as is.

 

 

 

This marks the end of our editing.

 

 

 

Additional Discussion

 

We decided to pursue meeting again during the fall. M. Nichols will look into it.

 

 

 

We had a discussion on the audience for these rules and the cataloging environment in which they would use them. J. Attig said that there are distinct audiences all of which are relevant for the standard. Others mentioned that DCRM(MSS) will not cover everything. Catalogers may use AMREMM, DACS, and DCRM(MSS) depending on the date of the material and whether it is being cataloged at the collection or item level. It was acknowledged that we have a difficult task but that we want an end product that will be used by the SAA community. The DCRM(S) editors mentioned that there are some rules that instruct the cataloger to do the opposite of what CONSER suggests, but that they made a clear argument for those cases and anticipate that the rules will be adopted.

 

 

 

It was also suggested that the introduction is a good place to bring out manuscript-specific issues, perhaps in the “Objectives and principles” or the “Decisions to make before beginning the description” section.

 

 

 

Next Steps

 

We divided up the work as follows. Each person took a section of Area 0 to rewrite which will become version 3 on the wiki. We will include wording from other standards primarily when it serves to illuminate a situation. Section 0E will be skipped for now as it may involve additional discussion with DACS users.

 

 

 

All: look at the DCRM Editorial Guidelines: http://wikis.ala.org/acrl/index.php/DCRM_Editorial_Guidelines

 

 

 

Bridger: a draft of a scope statement for 0A; 0C and 0D, possibly with H. Wolfe

 

 

 

Ducharme: 0B

 

 

 

Moriarty: minutes, 0F, and DCRM(B) errata

 

 

 

Nelson: incorporate the above edits into version 2 of the wiki (may not be possible with travel schedule)

 

 

 

Nichols: 0G

 

 

 

O’Keefe: 0A, except for the scope

 

 

 

1 other task: Send the wiki URL and viewing permission to DCRM editors and Bib Standards members

 

 

 

Issues Identified from the Minutes

 

J. Attig suggested developing a list of issues to be addressed at some point in the editing process. Here are items identified from this meeting’s minutes:

1.      Where will the date go: 245 |f or 260 |c?

2.      Will we address the case of photos with manuscript notes on them? Will this go in the introduction or in 0A?

3.      Will we address minimal-level records?

4.      Address the issue of rules for:

a.       Manuscripts issued with a title page

b.      Manuscripts issued without a title page

5.      Address the issue of rules for:

a.       Items with a title

b.      Items without a title

6.      The use of square brackets, e.g. with supplied title, date

7.      Possible extra appendixes:

a.       Item-level records within a larger finding aid

b.      EAD

c.       Examples

8.      Glossary: possible terms to be defined

a.       Title (from discussion of 0C1 6/30/08)

b.      Title page (from discussion of 0C1 6/30/08)