Meeting Notes

RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee Manuscripts Working Group

Folger Shakespeare Library Meeting

October 16-18, 2011

Present: Alison Bridger (Wisconsin Historical Society), Diane Ducharme (Yale University), Kate Moriarty (Saint Louis University), Jennifer Nelson (Robbins Collection, Law Library, UC Berkeley), Margaret Nichols (Cornell University, chair), Elizabeth O’Keefe (The Morgan Library), Heather Wolfe (Folger Shakespeare Library)

Area 5

• We started by addressing the comments we made on our final review of Area 5.    
• We discussed the fact that we have many optional rules. The reason for this is to provide a standard that will be used by two descriptive communities: catalogers (with an emphasis on differentiating) and archivists (with an emphasis on summarizing).     
• 5B. Extent
• We divided it into 5B1 General rule and 5B2 Fuller extent (optional).        
• We rewrote 5B1.2 (now 5B2.1) to say optionally, if a manuscript is numbered, use the appropriate term (page, leaf); if it is unnumbered use institutional practice.
• We added instructions to record anomalies in a note, if important. To do: add examples of pagination/foliation anomalies to Area 7.
• 5D. Size 
• 5D3.1 Differing sizes: We decided to use the phrase “various sizes” in this element with instructions to specify the sizes in a note, if considered important. Our reasoning was that this element should refer to an item and that the previous instruction to provide the span of sizes was not helpful for security, users, or paging.
• We will upload Area 5 to Digress.it and send it to the chair of Bib Standards in November to start the review process.       

Area 7 Part 1

• Discussion on Area 7 in general:
• What is the purpose of the area? Are we repeating too much? Sometimes we have notes examples in the rules themselves. Has anyone articulated the relation of Areas 1-6 to Area 7? If not, maybe we should.
• We decided to wait until we have finished Area 7 to review it for excessive repetition. Because of the nature of manuscripts, we will have more in the notes element than other DCRM formats.
• We briefly reviewed the work we had done at our last meeting on Area 7 rules (“7A. Preliminary rule” to what was “7B4. Attributions”) then continued through Area 7.
• 7A. Preliminary rule
• 7A4.1 Order of information: We will decide on the order of notes after the area is entirely written.
• A list of mandatory-when-applicable notes: In DCRM(B) the list of required notes is in the index. We’re considering also including the list in 7A.
• 7B. Notes
• 7B3. Manuscripts with a devised title
• 7B3.2 and 7B3.3 on address and date in devised titles: These rules redirect to rules 7B7.1-7B7.3 under “7B7. Place and date of production” but we felt we still needed them since people will look to the “7B3. Manuscripts with a devised title” section for devised title notes.
• Byname v. nickname: we discussed again our decision to use “byname”. Digital Scriptorium uses “nickname” but the OED definition did not seem to apply to our material. For now, we’re sticking with “byname.”
• 7B4. Manuscripts with a formal title
• 7B4.6 Abridged title: We have two rules in Area 1 for abridgement: 1)  title proper and 2) other title information. Can they both refer to the 7B4.6 rule?
• 7B5. Persons or corporate bodies associated with the manuscript
• We incorporated into this rule all notes rules regarding persons/things associated with the manuscript.
• 7B5.1.1: We changed DCRM(B)’s 7B6.3.3 “false attributions” to “incorrect attributions” as the word “false” in the manuscript world implies intent to deceive.
• 7B5.6 Statement of responsibility: We need to revisit this section. We may want it to parallel “7B5.1 Attributions” but as it stands, too many of the 7B5.6 rules redirect to 7B5.1. Please note: our definition of statement of responsibility is narrower than that for books. See also DCRM(MSS) 1E1 and 1E15.
• 7B6. Edition or version
• 7B6.1. General rule: We paralleled the language to our new phrasing for Area 2, which includes the concept of information taken from the manuscript, its housing or accompanying documentation, or a reliable reference source.
  

Area 7 Part 2

• This part will be renumbered. These minutes reflect its current numbering which starts at 7B6 but will probably be renumbered starting with 7B7.
• 7B. Notes
• 7B6. Language, writing systems, and script
• This was renamed from “Language, script, and hand.”
• We will include a footnote explaining that manuscript terminology differs from book (DCRM(B) and AACR2) terminology.
• Following established manuscript community use, “script” is a style of handwriting, “hand” is the individual manifestation of the script.
• Example: “In three hands.”
• Where should we address “hand” in Area 7? It would fit in three places:  notes addressing 1) creator, 2) language, or 3) physical description.
• 7B6.2. Writing systems
• Examples of a writing system:
• Roman alphabet
• Nonroman alphabet
• Cypher and shorthand are neither writing systems nor scripts. However, we included examples of them here under the instruction for a mandatory note, “Always note the presence of nonroman or coded writing systems in the manuscript.”
• 7B6.3. Script(s)
• We will limit the examples to named scripts.
• 7B7. Place and date of production
• We’ve stated that these rules could be used for small groups of letters. Would this be the place to include an example of such?
• Instructions that would be identical for place of production and place of production in devised titles will go in rule “7B7. Place and date of production” and be referred to from the devised title rule “7B3.2 Address, place of production, jurisdiction.”
• 7B7.3. Date
• We started on this section and may combine several of its rules.
• Start with this section at Midwinter 2012.        
• 7B9. Signatures
• Kate and Jenny will work on this.
• We may do as DCRM(S) and refer out to DCRM(B) for signatures. See DCRM(S) for language to use.
• We may also refer to AMREMM since DCRM(B) is publication-focused.
  

Other

• Area 1
• 1A2. Sources of information
• After a discussion on stating the source of the date and place, we added to this rule the language from “4A2. Sources of information”: “Record in a note the source of this information and/or the evidence on which it is based, if considered important.”
• 1D1.1. Method of production (under 1D. Material type)
• We added an example that includes two types of material: “manuscript and printed text”.
• 1E1. General rule (under 1E. Statements of responsibility)
• We changed the first sentence of this rule to limit it to a definition of statement of responsibility and moved its recording/transcription instruction to 1E2. Transcription of statement of responsibility.
  
• Area 2
• What are our reasons for excluding Area 2? Manuscripts do not fit into the DCRM(B) glossary definition but may fit into the AACR2 one. Our statement, from 2. Edition Area: “The definition of “edition” in DCRM(B) is not applicable to manuscripts as each one is unique.”
  
• Area 4
• 4B6.3: We now offer two options for indicating that no place of production can be determined: “place unknown” or “no place.” Previously, we only had “no place.”
• We revisited the issue of including the producer element/260 $b field. In situations in which the creator and producer are the same entity, such as with letters, this repetition would probably not be welcomed by catalogers and archivists. It could  be useful in situations in which the creator and producer differ.  

To Discuss

• Area 1
• We had another discussion on creation v. production and which to use in the devised title section. We have primarily been using “creation” but we will go through Area 1 and generate a list of rules in which the two words appear to decide which we will use. We will explain the distinction in the Introduction.   
• Area 4
• Do we want the language in the heading “4B6. Place of production uncertain or unknown” to match “4C5. Patterns for supplying a date”?
• DCRM(B)’s 4D5 reads “Patterns for supplying a conjectural date,” whereas DCRM(MSS)’s 4C5 reads “Patterns for supplying a date.” Do we have a manuscripts reason for omitting “conjectural”?
  

Assignment (In addition to those listed on the Assignments page)

• Editorial changes: We will go through past minutes to identify the editorial changes to DCRM(B) that we would like to propose. Of the 11 meeting minutes posted, each person, except Kate, will review two (starting from the bottom of the minutes list in this order: Alison, Diane, Jenny, Margaret, Liz, Heather). Kate will review the five meeting minutes not yet posted. Send results to our email list by 10/31/11 for review before forwarding them to Deborah Leslie for a future reprint of DCRM(B).       

Spring 2012 Meeting

• Rather than meeting at the Folger in the spring of 2012, we might try the Web-conferencing tool, GoToMeeting. Liz and Diane will look into it.