| 
  • 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 ago View current version     Page history
Saved by Alison
on March 9, 2011 at 1:46:26 pm
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

Most of our comments on Part I of DACS have to do with matters of clarity or logic, the need for more examples, and copy edits needed to correct typos and the like. The big question for Parts II and III, of course, is whether RDA will be implemented, and how widely. The revisers of DACS will have to decide whether to base Parts II and IIII exclusively on RDA or to provide alternative rules for RDA and AACR2. We also recommend that there be some mention of DCRM(MSS) as a resource for item-level description.

 

Preface (comments by Alison Bridger):

 

p. v “Archival descriptions in an online environment, where not only researchers but other archivists can see them, have highlighted differences and similarities in practice between repositories and brought to the fore the need for a content standard for finding aids.”

 

Comment: And yet there are still vast differences. Some of this is because of the types of materials that are being described: government records, personal papers, corporate records and valuable single items. While DACS has helped to bring things more into line with each other I think things are still too variable. Part of this has to do with the fact that while DACS is a content standard many of the rules still basically state do what ever is best for your institution. As Margaret Nichols stated in her talk at RBMS in Philadelphia, Archivists are more loosey goosey. I don't see any reason for why they need to be as much as they are. Admittedly archival and manuscript collections are not all the same and do not have a nice neat package like a book or a DVD but there are still many similarities between collections as a whole. I think with the advent of MPLP it seems that standards with hard and fast rules are more important then ever as when you have these rules it makes it easier to get down to the business of description. Of course the real question is do these differences in how information is disseminated make it more difficult for the users of these materials to find what it is they are looking for or not?

 

p. vi Relationship to other Standards

 

Comment: Need to add RDA as well as AMREMM and DCRM(MSS), as well as the whole DCRM suite as each have an appendix on Collections, repositories with large Graphics collections may turn to DCRM(G) instead and Music (M) and Cartographic (C) will cover manuscript versions of their materials.

 

After looking at the ISAD(G) 26 Data elements DACS layout makes more sense then it did when it first came out as it was so different from AACR2 and APPM is layout.

 

p. vii “DACS simply omits areas mentioned in APPM that have little or no relevance to the description of archival materials, such as bibliographic series, parallel titles, statements of responsibility, etc.”

 

Comment: DCRM(MSS) will be adding some of this especially Statement of Responsibility and at least basic rules for formulating Formal Titles since DACS does not cover this at all but does happen more frequently when describing at the item level.

 

p. viii “Artificial” collections – “Most repositories in the U.S. have such collections, and they need to be handled and described the same way as materials traditionally considered to be 'organic.'”

 

Comment: TRUE, the only problem with this notion is that many archivists still refer to them as artificial collections, at the very least these should at least be described as something as there are some things that would be dealt with differently. And what do we call them if not artificial? Repository collections? For example The Bancroft Library collects materials on George Sterling, some are collections created by others while another collection was created and added to over the years from many different sources one or a few manuscripts at a time, usually purchased from dealers; an artificial collection. How these get described and arranged may be slightly different. In DACS there are separate rule for titles for these types of “organic collections”, 2.3.22 and it would be nice to have a name to call them and artificial seems to fit best as a repository as collector is a little more artificial then an individual who does not follow the same sort of archival practices as a repository would do. A repository is not likely to put the collection in a scrapbook, make comments on the items and is more likely to impose an order on this collection once items come in. 

 

p. viii “DACS contains no specific rules for the description of particular media, e.g., sound recordings, maps, photographs, etc.”

 

Comment: Need to add that DACS also does not contain specific rules for the description of single items and that they should go to AMREMM for Medieval and Early Modern and to DCRM(MSS) for Modern mss, as rules for collections are going to be too broad for specifics. So while archives are heading towards MPLP there are instances when an institution is going to want to describe items more at an individual level because of monetary and/or research value, or because the item is a stand alone item.

 

STATEMENT OF PRINCIPALS (Comments by Alison Bridger)

 

Principle 1: Records in archives possess unique characteristics. “They most often consist of aggregations of documents (largely unpublished) and are managed as such, though archival institutions frequently hold discrete items that must also be treated consistently within the institution's descriptive system.”

 

Comment: Only the rules for the “discrete items” are not found here.

 

Principle 2: The principle of respect des fonds is the basis of archival arrangement and description.

 

Comment: I think something needs to be said here that while one must respect des fonds/original order that many collections do not have this as such. Admittedly here is not the place to go into this too much but I think it does need to be acknowledged that personal papers especially but even organizations, corporations and government records are not going to have an original order that that sometimes the description (if not the arrangement) may put things into a more logical/usable order. Because if we really did follow original order all of the time there would be no arrangement, it would be unnecessary. Obviously with MPLP there is less of this but … of course this is sort of covered in Principal 3.

 

Principle 4: Description reflects arrangement. “Archival repositories must be able to describe holdings ranging from thousands of linear feet to a single item.” “A single item may be described in minute detail, whether or not it is part of a larger body of material.”

 

Comment: But alas DACS does not give any rules for the single item and AACR2 does not give any help so one must hobble together rules from a variety of places. This will be solved with the future publication of DCRM(MSS).

 

Principle 5: The rules of description apply to all archival materials regardless of form or medium.

 

Comment: There are other rules to describe collections of materials in just one form of medium. For example DCRM(B) has an appendix on how to deal with print collections, as do (S), (G), and possibly (M) and (C). as well as CCO for objects.

 

Principle 7: use of word “elucidation” in the last sentence while may be the proper word could use a different word or phrase. Perhaps: This requires a [clarifying explanation] regarding the order in which such information is presented and the relationships between description(s) of the parts and the description of the whole. Or replace with “more thorough clarification or explanation.”

 

Principle 7.3: Information provided at each level of description must be appropriate to that level. “Information that is common to the component parts should be provided at the highest appropriate level” and the idea that information does not need to repeat itself.

 

Comment: The only problem with some information not needing to repeat itself is that sometimes a user finds themselves in a finding aid online or even a large MARC catalog record and have lost their place and the relevance of what they are looking at. Something as simple as the Call number and box number is all that is needed to place the folder. Sometimes this can be solved with a style sheet or other way electronically. In the days of paper finding aids many times the title of the collection along with the call number is repeated at the top of each page. Of course this needs to be balanced with the fact that everything at each level should not have or needs the same long information repeated over and over.

 

Principle 8: Creators:

 

Comment: So while creators need to be described this information can point outside of the description, either with the EAC, Library of Congress Name Authority Records, websites, printed biographies or even an item in the collection itself. Biog/Hists can sometimes get to be long and in the days of MPLP I think giving just enough information to identify the person/organization and perhaps to put the collection into context.

 

I think it might also be important to point out here that this is not the place to make judgments about the people or organizations as it really needs to be just the facts.

 

Also: “The repository as collector does not need to be described.”

 

Comment: While this is true it might be important to note when, why, how the repository started the particular collection which can be covered in other elements, but this history is important to if known.

 

OVERVIEW of Archival Description p. xvii (Comments by Alison Bridger)

 

“DACS is a standard that is independent of particular forms of output in given information systems, such as manual and electronic catalogs, databases, and other finding aid formats.”  Will be used with “two most commonly employed forms”

 

Comment: This does not state explicitly what these two are. While it is obvious I think it needs to be stated in a footnote at least. MARC and EAD? Ok they are mentioned in the next paragraph but why wait so long to mention?

 

I think one point that is missed is that any access points you have or use need to be mentioned somehow within the description besides just being an access point. There needs to be warrant for the access point.

 

p. xix at top of page

Access points fall into 6 board categories:

Names

Places – See comment below about changing

Subjects  *** below where it is described it has the heading Topical Subjects which is what it should be here and also note that all of these 6 broad categories can be subjects.

Documentary forms – See comment below about changing

Occupations

Functions *** below where it is described it has the heading Functions and Activities which is what it should be here

 

Names: creator or subject of the records.

 

Comment: Maybe point them to 2.6 for broader definition of creator since this term seems to be encompassing more than just the creator of the records but also the collector, photographer, editor, etc.

 

“At minimum, an access point should be made for every name included in the Name of Creator(s) Element in a single-level description, or at the highest level in a multilevel description.” I think there needs to be a provision that if the number of names becomes too numerous that the institution can decide to only create access points for the most prominent or if it a group of people with equal prominence but are also known collectively by a name that it is ok to only name the collective Corporate/Organization name.

 

“Part III provides directions ...” perhaps you should mention here that these rules come straight from AACR2 (Or if they are going to be changed to RDA then that they come from there).

 

I know a lot of people have also been confused as to how much of the name needs to be used when mentioned within the description. I think you could state here that if the full authorized form with dates and fuller forms of names is mentioned at the top level that is it not necessary to re record all this information further in the description, unless there are conflicts that need to be resolved, i.e. 2 or more people with the same name within a description.

 

Also I don't know if this is the place to cover it, but maybe this only needs to apply to names that are in the front matter of a finding aid not further down in a contents list. While it is important to be internally consistent (or institutionally consistent) with names it is not as important to be consistent with every minor name listed, as this can be time consuming.

 

P laces:

 

Comment: Perhaps this should be “Geographic Place” names not just places.

 

Coming from the Name of Creator and Admin/Bio is not always appropriate for inclusion. Just because someone is from somewhere does not mean that the materials tell someone anything about this place. I think there needs to be language that states that a geographic heading is not always appropriate for some collections.

 

Chapter 13 is straight from AACR2 and should be mentioned here I think. Or at least state the the LCSH headings are based on AACR2 chapter 2X

 

Topical Subjects: “The topical subject matter to which the records pertain is among the most important aspects of the archival materials”

 

Comment: True but sometimes the only subject you have is a name or place and not a topical subject. This might be because there is no one strong topical subject or there just really are none that fit.

 

You might also want to mention local subjects? And that is important to keep track of these in an authority file.

 

Documentary Forms:

 

Comment: Is this really the best terms? Perhaps “Form and Genre” or is this too booky?

 

Point people again to Appx B for Thesauri. Add RBMS Form/Genre forms to Appx B. Not appropriate for many types of archival collections but can be for mss collections.

 

Occupations:

 

Comment: Pulling this out seems weird to me as this is a type of a topical subject.

 

Functions and Activities:

 

Comment: Again aren't these just a type of Topical Subject?

 

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

 

Chapter 3 (Content and Structure Elements)

 

3.1. General: If we can’t distinguish between scope and content, why are we still calling it “scope and content”?
3.1. “to judge its potential relevance” to WHAT?
3.1.4: penultimate and last examples are for items (plat map and letter). next version of DACS could have a note here to refer people to DCRM(MSS)  for cataloging materials at the item-level, should the cataloger have a desire to do so.
3.2: Somewhere, this needs to at least mention the concept “series.” All of the examples assume the use of series and subseries, yet the rules speak only of “aggregations.” 

 

Chapter 4 (Conditions of Access and Use Elements)

 

4.2.5 Examples are unclear, as there is no mention of limited access or restricted use in the condition description, it is not clear to user what this element is doing except describing the physical condition of the materials, not access to the materials (seems to create confusion between access to the intellectual content and access to the physical item)
4.4.9: should read: “If the materials being described are known to be protected by copyright…
4.6.2 should specify that the completeness, or incompleteness, of the finding aid should always be mentioned

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

 

Chapter 5 (Acquisition and Appraisal Elements)

 

5.1. unclear. It probably should read “from the time it left the possession of the creator until the time it came into the possession of the owner from whom the repository received it.” I know that sounds confusing, but it is equally confusing to have the definition of the element read: “from the time it left the possession of the creator until it was acquired by the repository” and then to have the following rule exclude the source from which it was acquired by the repository.
5.1.2 need more examples of source of information for this element.

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.


5.3 strike about the rationale for; actually this is 5.2.4
5.3: first sentence of "commentary" should be edited to read "Not all materials offered to, or acquired by, a repository MERIT permanent retention" (not merits)
5.4. strike second sentence (“An accrual is…:”) This is glossary material, and the definition in the glossary differs slightly. 

 

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 A (Glossary)

 

Aggregation: Term seems to apply to everything from a large records group to a file. Needs clarification at least
Arrangement: I realize this is from Pearce-Moses, but does anyone use “arrangement” in definition 1?
Formal title: definition should be more comprehensive and should be drafted in collaboration with DCRM(MSS). DCRM(MSS) has a working (*not final*) definition for Formal title. The definition in the two standards should be the same. Also, it is not accurate that a formal title always "prominently" appears in or on an item/collection
Inventory: I would go back to Pearce-Moses on this: n. ~ 1. A list of things. – 2. Description · A finding aid that includes, at a minimum, a list of the series in a collection. – 3. Records management · The process of surveying the records in an office, typically at the series level.
--> Add entry for "Item-level description" and at some point mention the existence of DCRM(MSS) 

 

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 map to 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"

 

Table C2: ISAD(G) to DACS

Nothing to add.

 

Table C3: ISAAR(CPF) to DACS

Comments are based on the "Final, 1 April 2004" 2nd edition of ISAAR(CPF): http://www.icacds.org.uk/eng/ISAAR%28CPF%292ed.pdf

  • P. 217: Change ISAAR(CPF) 5.1.2 to read: Authorized form(s) of name
  • P. 217: ISAAR(CPF) 5.1.6: the DACS match reads: Identifiers for corporate bodies [not names]
  • P. 217: ISAAR(CPF) 5.2.5: the DACS column should read: 10.21, 10.30 Occupation, life, activities, Functions
  • P. 217: Change ISAAR(CPF) 5.4.3 to read: Rules and/or conventions [plural]
  • P. 217: ISAAR(CPF) 5.4.6
    • Change the ISAAR(CPF) 5.4.6 entry to read: Dates of creation, revision or deletion
    • Change the DACS column entry to read: Date(s) of authority record creation
  • P. 218: ISAAR(CPF) 6.1 first word is: Identifiers [was lacking the "r"]
  • P. 218: Change ISAAR(CPF) 6.2 to read: Types of related resources [plural]
  • P. 218: ISAAR(CPF) 6.4: In the DACS column, delete "and/" to read: Dates of related resources or relationships 

 

Table C4: DACS to APPM

  • P. 219: DACS 2.2 "Name and Location of Repository" is missing.

 

Table C5: DACS to EAD and MARC

  • Uncertain about p. 221, last two rows, EAD column: what do "See 2.6" and "See 2.7" refer to?

 

Table C6: DACS to ISAD(G)

  • P. 222: DACS 2.2 "Name and Location of Repository" is missing.
  • P. 222: DACS 11 is called "Authority records" not "Authority control"
  • P. 222: DACS 2.6: in the ISAD(G) column, include the "(s)" to read: 3.2.1 Name of creator(s)
  • P. 222: DACS 8.1.5 "Archivist and date" would also map to ISAD(G) 3.7.1

 

Table C7: DACS to ISAAR(CPF)

Comments are based on the "Final, 1 April 2004" 2nd edition of ISAAR(CPF): http://www.icacds.org.uk/eng/ISAAR%28CPF%292ed.pdf

  • P. 223: DACS 10.16: in DACS, the caption reads: Name(s)
  • P. 223: DACS 10.19: in DACS, the caption reads: Place(s) of residence
  • P. 223: DACS 10.24 says it maps to ISAAR(CPF) 5.2.9 Other significant information. There is no 5.2.9.
  • P. 223: DACS 10.35: in DACS, the caption reads: Name(s) of Chief Officers
  • P. 223: DACS 11.14: remove "the" from the ISAAR(CPF) 5.3.3 entry
  • P. 223: DACS 11.15: remove "the" from the ISAAR(CPF) 5.3.2 entry
  • P. 224: DACS 11.17: remove "the" from the ISAAR(CPF) 5.3.3 entry
  • p. 224: DACS 11.18: in DACS, the caption is singular: Repository Code
  • P. 224: DACS 11.29: Correct the typo to read "Types of related resources" not "Types of resource resources"
  • P. 224: DACS 11.31: Delete "and/" to match the caption of p. 112 of DACS: Dates of related resources or relationships

 

 

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.