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

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

DACS Review, Spring 2011

This version was saved 13 years, 1 month ago View current version     Page history
Saved by Kate Moriarty
on March 2, 2011 at 6:23:37 pm
 

Statement of Principles

Overview of Archival Description

Part I:

Introduction to Describing Archival Materials

Chapter 1 (Levels of Description)

Chapter 2 (Identity Elements)

 

 

Chapter 3 (Content and Structure Elements)

Chapter 4 (Conditions of Access and Use Elements)

Chapter 5 (Acquisition and Appraisal Elements)

 

 

LIZ Comment on Chapter 2.6 (Name of Creator(s) Element:

DACS refers here and elsewhere to identifying the roles played by persons, families, or corporate bodies vis-a-vis the resource. As far as I can see, the only place the role is explicitly identified is in the Administrative/Biographical area. Would DACS consider offering guidelines on including role information in access points, as relator terms (MARC subfield $e),  e.g.

 

Smith, John, $e collector

Smith, John, $e cartographer (for an archival collection of maps)

Smith, John, $e former owner

 

Liz Comment on 4.6.5, Published Descriptions

How about providing an example of MARC coding for a citation to a description published in standard lists, e.g.

 

510   $a Ricci. Census,$c vol.1, p. 857, no. 4

 

Liz Comment on 5.2. Immediate Source of Acquisition Element :

There is no mention here of former accession or inventory numbers. Former numbers are very useful identifiers for individual manuscripts (which are often identified primarily by their inventory numbers), in cases where a manuscript has been transferred to another repository, or the accession number assigned by the repository changes. I’m not sure this applies to larger groups of material, but it might. Maybe they could be covered under:

 

7.1.6. “If appropriate at the file or item level of description, make a note of any important numbers borne by the unit being described.”

 

Although “borne” suggests they appear on the item, which may not be the case. "Borne by or formerly assigned to" might do it.

 

 

Chapter 6 (Related Materials Elements)

 

6.2.3.: Dead link in the 4th example. Is it this instead: http://www.mnhs.org/library/Christie/intropage.html

 

6.2.5.: Should the 1st MARC example read: 530 bb $3 Diaries $a available on microfilm for use in repository only.

EOK: Yes (unless the collection consists solely of diaries, in which case there is no need for a $3, it should just read: $a Available on microfilm ...)

 

6.3.5.: Uncertain about the last example, "Motion picture films and sound and video recordings transferred to Library of Congress Motion Picture, Broadcasting and Recorded Sound Division." From the description, it sounds like this has the same provenance as the rest of the collection but the MARC encoded example gives 544 bb so I'm not sure. Does this example go here? Is there an element that covers the location of various parts of the collection?

 

Chapter 7 (Note Elements)

 

7.1.2.: First example: Does this belong in 6.3 Related Archival Materials Element? If so, it would also affect the first example on p. 79. 

 

Chapter 8 (Description Control Elements)

 

P. 82: As DACS is now defined as a value in the Description Convention Source Codes, remove the asterisk from the penultimate example and the asterisked note, "*Note: DACS has not yet been defined as a value in the MARC Code List for Relators, Sources, Description Conventions." 

 

 

Part II

Chapter 9 (Identifying Creators) --"rules for determining which entities need to be documented as creators" (p. 89, Commentary para. 2)

 

p. 89, Commentary para. 1: repeats points made in 2.6, which makes you wonder why this chapter couldn't have just been integrated with 2.6.

 

p. 90, "Identifying Creators," Commentary includes what seems as if it ought to be a cataloging rule (a supplied title may contain multiple creators' names if they are persons or families, but only one creator can be named in the title of a collection of records of a corporate body). This is a significant point, but seems buried here.

 

 

9.10 (p.91): The examples could be clearer. One thing that makes them confusing is that they don't show where else the information on creators appears in the finding aid if one follows the option not to record it at the series, file, or item level, respectively, so the examples make it look as if the archivist were being given the option to omit the creator information entirely. Also, in the 3rd example, if Gardiner Greene Hubbard is the creator of the biography of him, wouldn't it be an autobiography? If it's not an autobiography, wouldn't its creator be somebody else?

 

Another thing that makes Chapter 9 harder to absorb is that it's separated from its context. The creators it refers to are to be recorded in the Name of Creators Element, described in 2.6; and the rules for formulating the names are in Chapters 12-14. While I can understand the separation between rules for description and rules for access points (a separation also present in AACR2 and APPM), it's less clear why the authors felt it necessary to separate the rules for identifying creators from the Name of Creators Element. So a cataloger has to look in three different places to figure out what to put in the 100 or 110 field? Seems more complicated than necessary. I'm sure there's a good rationale for this structure, but what is it? ISAD(G) doesn't have a split like the one between Parts I and II of DACS.

 

Examples of Encoding: very useful, but why is this here rather than directly following 2.6, like the encoding examples that directly follow the other elements of the description in Part I?

 

Chapter 10 (Administrative/Biographical History) --very informative, much more detailed than APPM 1.7B1

 

p. 93, para. 1 last line: should add the number of the Name of Creator(s) Element (2.6)

"nominal access points"--I think the phrase "name access points" would be clearer. "Nominal" has the connotation of "in name only," which just obscures the meaning here.

 

Again, the separation between Parts I and II of DACS seems artificial here. Essentially what 2.7 does is to refer people to Chapter 10 to find out how to proceed. Why make them go someplace else to find out?

 

Chapter 11 (Authority Records) --gives instructions for creating an archival authority record according to ISAAR(CPF)

 

Liz Comment on Chapter 11, Authority Record:

This chapter of DACS anticipates RDA (Resource Description and Access), in that, unlike AACR,  it gives instructions on how to formulate authority records, including much useful biographical or historical information, instead of just telling users how to formulate headings for authorized and variant forms, as AACR did. DACS is less granular than RDA, though, and might benefit from incorporating some of the data elements introduced by RDA,.such as gender, associated language, etc.

 

TYPO in Chapter 12. Form of Names for Persons and Families, Commentary:

 “Once a personal or family name has been chosen for recording in a Name of Creator(s) Element, for inclusion in an archival authority record, or as a nominal access point, the form of that name must be standardized.  The purpose of this chapter is to provide rules for the standardized form of the names of persons and families. Regularization of names is critical to the formulation of consistent citations to archival materials and, particularly in online environments, to the retrieval of all relevant records.  Therefore it is important for archivists to use the authority {TYPO FOR “authorized”} form of a name, if one exists, from the Library of Congress Authorities.”

 

11.7, on parallel forms of the name: a holdover from the CUSTARD project? (MN)

 

General comment on chapter 11 (MN): It would be very helpful to the beginning cataloger to have some examples of archival authority records among the examples in Appendix D. Otherwise, instructions such as "record as a related name ..." (in 11.7) and "record as a variant ..." (in 11.8) seem abstract, and it might not be clear to the beginner how to implement them. (Actually there's a sample authority record at the end of Chapter 11, but still, it would be handy to have one in Appendix D as well.)

 

Rules 11.9-11.10: it would be helpful to specify in the rule that these other forms of name are to be recorded as variant names, especially in 11.9 (where the examples don't specify how the names are to be treated).

 

General comment on Chapter 11 (MN): it looks like an adaptation of ISAAR (CPF), structured according to AACR2. Now I see why DACS has a Part II: it probably would have been too much to try to present the info on construction of an archival authority record and, at the same time, rules for formulating name headings.

 

It would be helpful to have an example of an archival authority record for a corporate body, too.

 

Question: What do we do if some libraries adopt RDA and others don't? I suppose DACS could follow DCRM(G)'s practice of including alternative rules for RDA implementers. The proliferation of standards is creating a bit of a murky situation, though, isn't it? The authors of DACS have done a real service to the profession by formulating the rules in the light of FRBR, ISAD(G), and ISAAR(CPF), and taking both MARC and EAD formats into account. Still, Parts II and III of DACS rely heavily on AACR2, so if RDA is generally adopted, DACS will need a major overhaul.

 

Part III 

Liz General Comment On Part III:

Part III of DACS basically reproduces the sections of AACR2 that deal with the formulation of personal, corporate, and geographic names, and adds new rules for family names, which were not covered in AACR: This was done to promote retrieval in an integrated catalog. Will this section be affected by the implementation of RDA (Resource Description and Access), if indeed RDA is implemented? RDA is not hugely different from AACR in its formulation of name headings, but there are differences: preference for the fullest form of name, elimination of most abbreviations (“born” for “b.”, “died” for “d.”, “approximately” for “ca.”). Also, the RDA rules are structured quite differently from AACR, in terms of organization and numbering, and they combine instructions for information that goes into an authority record with instructions on how to formulate a name as an access point (DACS devotes separate chapters to formulation of name headings and creation of authority records). Does DACS envision retaining Part III as is, retaining the current structure but rewriting parts of it to conform with RDA, or adopting the RDA structure wholesale?

 

Liz Comment on 12.29, Family names:

AACR did not include rules for formulating access points for family names, so DACS added a section to cover this. It is very similar to the rules in the LC Subject Cataloging Manual for devising headings for families for use in subject indexing. RDA now devotes a whole chapter to formalation of family names as access points. The RDA rules are more detailed than DACS (e.g. they include a data element for type of family, such as dynasty or clan); RDA also provides a lot of guidance on how to break conflicts, by adding dates, geogoraphic areas, or names of prominent family members. Will DACS want to retain the existing rules, or adopt the RDA rules?

 

Appendices 

 

Appendix B (Companion Standards)

 

P. 209: Graphic Materials: The Parker book will soon be replaced by Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Graphics). (For more information: http://www.rbms.info/committees/bibliographic_standards/dcrm/dcrmg/dcrmg.html).  

 

P. 210, top two entries: The IASA Cataloguing Rules: Is this the correct link? http://www.iasa-web.org/iasa-cataloguing-rules

 

P. 210: Objects: Cataloging Cultural Objects has been published: Cataloging Cultural Objects: A Guide to Describing Cultural Works and Their Images. Chicago: American Library Association, 2006. There is also an online CCO Commons at http://www.vrafoundation.org/ccoweb/index.htm

 

P. 210: Thesauri: Art & Architecture Thesaurus: the link in DACS will get you there but here is the new link: http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/index.html

 

P. 210: Categories for the Description of Works of Art: direct link: http://www.getty.edu/research/publications/electronic_publications/cdwa/index.html

 

P. 210: Medical Subject Headings: Appears to have been updated in 2010.

 

P. 211: Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names: direct link: http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/tgn/index.html

 

P. 211: Union List of Artists' Names: direct link: http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/ulan/index.html

 

P. 212: MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data: Including Guidelines for Content Designation: Title has been shortened to MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data. The link provides access to both the full and concise versions.

 

Appendix C: Crosswalks

 

P. 213, ISAAR(CPF): a final version is available at http://www.icacds.org.uk/eng/standards.htm

 

P. 213, MARC 21: the link takes you to the overall MARC 21 website which is not confined to the concise edition.

 

Table C1: APPM to DACS

  • P. 214: 1.5B in APPM is called "Statement of extent", not "Extent"
  • P. 214: APPM 1.7B15 Preferred Citation would match DACS 7.1.5 Citation
  • P. 215: APPM 3 Headings for Persons. The DACS entry should read "12 Form of Names for Persons and Families" not "... People and Families"

 

Appendix D (Full EAD and MARC21 Examples) 

Examples provided in EAD and then in MARC21: personal papers, family papers, organizational records, and a collection (what used to be called an artificial collection). These seem very helpful, especially the annotations referring people to particular DACS rules. The EAD examples would be easier to read if they put in an extra space at the end of each major section of the finding aid, just to make things clearer. A sentence could be added at the beginning of Appendix D to explain that the extra spaces are purely for visual clarity, not required by EAD.

 

Minor question about the 300 field, p. 269: wouldn't a 300 with two ways of describing the extent be done as 1 $f v. (147 p.), rather than 1 $fv. : 147 p.? (see rule 2.5.7)

 

Throughout the MARC21 examples, a first indicator will need to be added in 506 fields. Also, 555 first indicator is 0 if the note is about the finding aid (e.g. on p. 264). Also on p. 264: 545 first indicator should be 0 for an individual. Throughout, 541 fields will need first indicator 0 or 1.

 

 

Comments (0)

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