• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Want to get organized in 2022? Let Dokkio put your cloud files (Drive, Dropbox, and Slack and Gmail attachments) and documents (Google Docs, Sheets, and Notion) in order. Try Dokkio (from the makers of PBworks) for free. Available on the web, Mac, and Windows.


Unresolved Issues

Page history last edited by Margaret Nichols 6 years, 11 months ago

February 2015 (following a presentation at ALA Midwinter on cataloging screenplays--see ALA Midwinter 2015 notes listed under "Recent activity" on this wiki): We might consider adding more guidance on describing screenplays. If considered appropriate, for instance, we could add a sentence to Appendix F about making an additional access point for the movie that corresponds to the screenplay, on the order of 730 0_ To have and have not (Motion picture). On the other hand, since we're focusing mainly on description, we could leave out the mention of access points and just enumerate elements to be included in the description of a screenplay, if different from those for other types of literary manuscripts. (MN)


December 2012 Meeting


Since we removed some text from Intro during the rewrite, we also deleted footnotes we no longer had a use for. However, they are worth keeping and referring to elsewhere, e.g. bibliography or appendixes:


RBMS Thesauri: Binding Terms; Genre Terms; Paper Terms; Printing and Publishing Evidence; Provenance Evidence; and Type Evidence.

Peter Beal, A Dictionary of English Manuscript Terminology, 1450-2000 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).


"If an institution is a BIBCO participant contributing core-level records as part of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC), all headings must be established in the LC/NACO and LC/SACO Authority Files."


October 2011 Meeting

  • Area 1: Use "creation" or "production" in 1B. Devised title?


June 2010 Meeting


Using square brackets to expand contractions in formal titles: should this go in Area 0 or in 1C?

Develop "Material Types" Appendix


Pre-June 2010

Enter any unresolved issue under its corresponding area. "Other Unresolved Issues" can be used for cross-area issues or anything that does not fit neatly under the other headings.




0. General Rules

  1. Will we address the case of photos with manuscript notes on them? Will this go in the Introduction or in 0A? These seem more like mixed material or visual material than manuscripts
  2. Address the issue of rules for:
    1. Manuscripts issued with a title page (0C)--done
    2. Manuscripts issued without a title page (0C)--done
    3. Manuscripts described within a finding aid--could use more examples of these
    4. Manuscripts in microfilm or digital form
  3. Address the issue of rules for:
    1. Items with a title--done
    2. Items without a title--done
  4. The use of square brackets, e.g. with supplied title, date
  5. Revisit the issue of variant spellings and interpolations ("sic" [square brackets], etc.) and determine whether the existing rules, or the rules we are proposing, are internally consistent.



1. Title and Statement of Responsibility Area

1. Should we use a GMD (general material designation) for a manuscript? No--material type in title area addresses this

2. What information should be included in a supplied title? Covered

3. Where should we record that the manuscript is in the author's hand? What terminology should we use?--autograph

4. How should we treat supplied titles for:

i. poems

ii. legal documents

iii. fragments?

5. Regarding what is now 1D: Statements of Responsibility; and 1G: Multiple works in a single item.

1D: Should we pair "Statement of Responsibility" with "Formal title" and pair "Creators" with "Supplied titles" OR at least put "Creators" before "Statement of Responsibility" in the Contents list? (AEB)

1G: Should we move "Multiple works in a single item" to Appendix B OR have it be part of "Supplied title" and

"Formal title" (AEB)

5. Is the place of signing important for supplied title for legal documents?

6. Should the petitioner's name be included in the supplied title for a petition as well as the name of the person who is being peitioned?

7. Should the name of the testator be included in the supplied title for a will?


2. Edition Area



4. Date Area



5. Physical Description Area

1. Should we follow AMREMM in using a series of notes on particular aspects of the item (e.g. decoration, layout, etc.) in lieu of detailed description in the PD area? - No, we will not use labeled notes. This is RESOLVED by covering all of these areas in notes


2. Re 5D: Size and Format. Under consideration is making it mandatory to record height and width for a full-level record. Minimum-level records will not require measurement. In core-level record only height would be required. Issue: archivists who don't have the practice of measuring at all may not like the fact that their records will not be considered "full level" according to this rule, because there are different standards for "full level" in different communities. Should this be a bifurcation in the rules?



7. Note Area

Discussion on "scope" note versus "with" note.


Language note: require or not? Need bifurcation here for archival vs. bibliographic?


Appendix A. MARC 21 Descriptive Conventions Code



Appendix B. Collection-Level Records



Appendix C. Core-Level Records

1. Do we want to lay out specs for a core-level manuscript record? It might be useful, since the BIBCO Standard Record doesn't apply to mss. (i.e., requirements for a core-level manuscript catalog record are not already covered elsewhere)--MN


Appendix D. Minimal-Level Records

  1. Do we plan to address this?



Appendix E. Variations Requiring a New Record

This doesn't seem applicable to manuscripts, where the default will be that a new record is required, since each manuscript is unique (MN)


Appendix F. Title Access Points



Appendix G. Early Letter Forms and Symbols



Appendix H. Individual and Special Issues of Serials




  1. Title (see 6/30/08 minutes discussion under 0C1)
  2. Title page (see 6/30/08 minutes discussion under 0C1)



Other Unresolved Issues


  1. Where will the date go: 245 |f or 260 |c? RESOLVED
  2. Possible extra appendixes:
    1. Item-level records within a larger finding aid--Do we need a whole appendix for this? It's just a unit in the container list of the finding aid (MN)


  • EAD
  • Examples
  • Crosswalks between DCRM and other standards
  • Transcription: What should be transcribed; how; why. Develop guiding principle (section 0, Introduction, and wherever it appears in the text)
  • How is the structure and/or specific rules of DCRM helping or hindering our thoughts about item-level manuscript cataloging and its use for other communities.
  • How do we build "decision tree" options into this existing structure, or what conventions should we use to invite other options.
  • To what extent should we be aiming to give guidance to people describing a single item within a larger context (e.g. within a finding aid for a larger collection)? Would people actually refer to a separate set of cataloging rules for this purpose? (Cf. 2.i. above)
  • How do we incorporate provisions for describing a manuscript on microfilm or in digital form? It might be enough just to include manuscripts in microfilm and digital form among our examples--? MN


Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.