WE MAY NEED TO CHANGE "element" TO "component" DO A SEARCH AND REPLACE FOR EACH INSTANCE. AEB 1/19/10

 General comments

* Many of my comments relating to formatting and punctuation are based on guidelines established for DCRM editors found in the Editorial Guidelines wiki:

http://wikis.ala.org/acrl/index.php/DCRM_Editorial_Guidelines

* Comments that are purely format or punctuation-related are preceded by “F&p:” below.

* Suggested additions to text are underlined; suggested deletions are struck through.

 * Whenever a rule to make a note includes “if considered important,” the note itself is optional. Precede such notes in examples with “Optional note:”

I thought the distinction between formal and devised titles was clear, though I did wonder why the editorial team chose the term “devised” instead of “supplied”. I see that it is consistent with the terminology used in DCRM(B), but both AACR2 and DACS use “supplied,” and both rare book librarians and archivists here were more familiar with the term “supplied.” However, we all agreed that the term “devised” is clear, so maybe it’s not an issue.  RESOLVED: DCRM uses term "devised title" and we're following that 

If I have one overall concern, it's that it's going to be difficult to

give all the "instructional" info you're giving without the rules blurring into

a guidebook. But as a greenhorn regarding manuscripts, the instructional info

seems highly valuable and necessary to me.

It's definitely hard to figure out precisely where explanatory matter belongs in

a document like this: embedded within the rules (as I think the editors have

done here)? Or separated out, and placed either within the Introduction, or

within Area 0?  I don't know which is best, but the other DCRMs in the works

will have to deal with this too: DCRM(B) and DCRM(S) didn't bear that burden of

staking out entirely new ground. MSS, G, M, and C definitely do have to do some

handholding, and it remains to be seen where in the document that's best done.

Having said that, it will be clear from my comments that as I read I found

myself questioning whether Area 1 is the best place for some of the Big

Concepts that are explicated throughout 1A-1D. Chief among these of course is

the formal vs. devised title issue. Overall, I suppose I'd rather see

explanatory information separated somewhat from the text of the rules proper.

Many of the questions I ask, and comments I make, are meant more as discussion

questions than as direct suggestions. _I don't know_ the answer to most of the

questions I've raised. They're just the questions that come to mind for someone

unaccustomed to working with manuscripts, but very accustomed to the rules in

DCRM(B) and DCRM(S) - which, I acknowledge, will have to bend like crazy to

accommodate vastly different materials. Which is fine.

Within my comments, wherever I have said "Change" please read it not as a

"suggested change."

Area 1

Contents: Does date of creation precede statement of responsibility in description? If so, should it be presented in that order? That is, date of creation = 1C; statement of responsibility = 1D? ORDER INFORMATION IS IN WILL DEPEND ON YOUR APPLICATION OF THE RULES ACCORDING TO COMMUNITY (CATALOGER VS. ARCHIVIST) AND/OR LOCAL PRACTICE; MAKE THIS CLEAR IN AN APPLICATION MANUAL; REVIEW ALL EXAMPLES TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE CONSISTENT (OR TO SHOW THE TWO DIFFERENT WAYS BUT BE EXPLICIT ABOUT THE APPLICATION IN THE RULES).

General issues

Would help to have clearer list steps for determining: 

Order of title sources - INFO IS THERE BUT IS IN "AREA 0"; WILL BE CLEARER TO READERS IN FULLER VERSION OF RULES; IN AREA 1 TEXT, ADD "SEE AREA 0" OR MOVE FROM "AREA 0" TO "AREA 1" WHERE APPROPRIATE (this could be an example of when to do this as it applies specifically to this rule)

Devised vs. transcribed title - EXPLAINED MORE FULLY IN "AREA 0" ALREADY

Options for elements ??????????? (CLARIFY WITH PERSON ASKING)

Literary vs. non-literary - RESOLVED BY IGNORING

Define, for inexperienced catalogers: chief title, title proper, title page substitute - "TITLE PROPER" IS ALREADY DEFINED IN A FOOTNOTE IN "AREA 1" (1B2.1); ALSO,THESE TERMS ARE DEFINED IN AACR2 SO THE INEXPERIENCED CATALOGER SHOULD LOOK TO TO THE AACR2 MANUAL; THESE RULES ARE NOT THE PLACE TO DEFINE THESE (BUT DO MAKE SURE WE'RE USING THE TERM "CHIEF TITLE" CORRECTLY OR DEFINING IT APPROPRIATELY); DO MAKE SURE WE ARE CONSISTENT WITH TERMS.

Give options to include in note rather than title:

            1B1.1:  untitled  

            1B1.2.2: autograph letter signed  

            1B1.2.2: manuscript (in example) - WE'VE ALREADY GOT THESE ALL AS "OPTIONALLY"S; YOU CAN ALWAYS PUT INFORMATION IN A NOTE; IN "AREA 7" WE CAN HAVE A STATEMENT THAT INSTRUCTS THE CATALOGER TO PUT ANY INFORMATION THAT HAS NOT BEEN PUT IN THE DESCRIPTON PRIOR TO AREA 7 CAN GO HERE IF CONSIDERED IMPORTANT.

Fix use of run on sentences with commas in examples of notes, eg: 1D2.4, 1D3 

Note to readers of this draft: The phrase ‚Make an added entry‛ is problematic and is used just for now, for lack of anything better. Archivists are unlikely to know what this phrase means. On the other hand, if we write ‚Treat as a variant title‛ or ‚Trace as a variant title,‛ rare book catalogers will likely find the use of the word ‚variant‛ confusing, since it connotes a bibliographical variant, as in printed books. Archivists might not know what ‚trace‛ means. How can we express the idea of ‚Make an added entry‛ so that it will be clear to both archivists and rare book catalogers? How about "Record the alternate title as a separate data element or access point?" - REPLACE "MAKE AN ADDED ENTRY" WITH "PROVIDE THE VARIANT TITLE IN AN ACCESS POINT"

1 -- I felt that the distinction between devised and formal titles was clear, although the language about the appropriateness or customariness of formal titles was at times confusing. I also felt that the order of the elements was workable. REVIEW DOC FOR CONSISTENCY

2 -- Area 1 is defined in International Standard Bibliographic Description as the "Title and Statement of Responsibility Area." However, the DCRM(Mss) draft rules concentrates in Area 1 information typically recorded in Areas 4 and 7. While date information had been moved into the title in APPM, this standard has now been superseded. Current standards, including both DACS and ISAD(G), treat date information as being separate from the title. Looking forward, according to the draft of RDA released for constituency review last November date information for archival materials is to be recorded as date of manufacture (an Area 4 element). It would make better sense to keep date information for archives in the same area as in other formats instead of mixing it with title information. Similarly, in the case of the material type additions it seems undesirable to mix this information with a transcribed formal titles. To maintain consistency with existing current standards and to improve the consistency of our records in a mixed environment, it would be preferable to keep Area 1 with only title and statement of responsibility information. - - EXPERIMENT WITH EXAMPLES AND SEE HOW THEY WOULD WORK IN A 260 + 245 SCENARIO; SAVE SECOND PART OF COMMENT FOR 1B3. (SUBFIELD "K" IS NEVER TRANSCRIBED)

3 -- Suggest adding page numbers to the document. - YES

4 -- Many of the examples used are still fairly old, chronologically (ie- close to 1600).  Is there any chance of using more examples from the 20th century? - YES