Transcript PPT - Music Library Association

Creating Metadata for
Rare and Archival Materials:
Standards and Practices
Music Library Association
Annual Meeting 2016
Today’s Topics and Speakers
• Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Music)
– Nancy Lorimer, Stanford University
• DACS and Archival Music Collections
– Elizabeth Surles, Institute of Jazz Studies
• Encoded Archival Description and You
– Maristella Feustle, University of North Texas
• Selecting Standards for Rare and Archival Materials
– Elizabeth Hobart, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill
An introduction and comparison to general
cataloging practice
Nancy Lorimer, Stanford University
What is DCRM(M)?

 Manual providing guidelines for the descriptive
cataloging of rare notated music
 Augments general cataloging standards (AACR2,
RDA)
 MARC21 is the presumed format for representation,
but is not mandatory
 Does not address construction & assignment of
controlled access points
Background

AACR2
 Chapter 2, Books, Pamphlets, and Printed Sheets
 Early Printed Monographs (rules 2.12-2.18)
ISBD(A)
Bibliographic Description of Rare Books (BDRB), 1981
 Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Books (DCRB)
 Revised ed. of BDRB, 1991
Background

 Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Books)
 Published initially in paper 2007
 Also available with updates & corrections at:
http://rbms.info/dcrm/dcrmb/
DRCM

 Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials






DCRM(B)
DCRM(S)
DCRM(G)
DCRM(C)
DCRM(M)
DCRM(MSS)
Books
Serials
Graphic materials
Cartographic materials
Music
Manuscripts
Use of DCRM(M)

 Notated music
 Any resource deemed “rare” by the cataloging agency
 Resources that require additional description for
identification (editions, impressions, issues)
 Resources that require additional description to provide
exact descriptions as artifacts
 Typically used for, but not limited to, older resources (especially pre1830) in special collections
Basis for DCRM(M)

 AACR2
 ISBD consolidated
 DCRM(B)
 DCRM general editorial guidelines
 Yes, it is based on AACR2! DCRM began long before
RDA was published, but…
Status of DCRM(M)

 Final proofreading just completed by BSC
 Next steps:




Approval by BSC
Approval by CMC
Approval by RBMS Board
Approval by MLA Board
Recognizing a
DCRM(M) record

 040 will have the $e dcrmm
(other DCRM manuals have their own code: dcrmb; dcrms; dcrmg; dcrmc)
In an AACR2 record:
040 STF $b eng $e dcrmm $c STF
In an RDA record:
040 STF $b eng $e rda $e dcrmm $c STF
DCRM(M) & RDA

 DCRM(M) can be used with RDA
 combined with instructions in the PCC Bibliographic
Standard Record (BSR) instructions for rare materials
 Rare materials—applies to all rare materials, including
music
 Rare music—music being cataloged according to
DCRM(M)
DCRM(M) & RDA:
Transcription

1.7.1 (Alternative). Invoke alternative and use DCRM
as designated style manual instead of RDA 1.7.2-.9
Transcription

 Generally fuller than general cataloging
 Retains square brackets for cataloger-supplied
information & corrections
 Transcription guidelines for:
 Earlier forms of letters, diacritical marks, spellings
 Inaccuracies of the printing process
 Abbreviations & contractions from the manuscript
traditions
 Fictious information, chronograms
 Transcription of information not considered part of any
ISBD area
245 10 $a Persée ; $b et Phaeton /$c mis en
musique par Mr de Lully, sur-intendant de la
musique du Roy.
245 10 Phaëton : $b tragedie
mise en musique / $c par
Monsieur de Lully, Escuyer,
Conseiller Secretaire du Roy,
Maison, Couronne de France
& de ses finances & SurIntendant de la Musique de
Sa Majesté.
Publication statement—Score

264 $1 Paris : $b Par Christophe Ballard, $c MDCLXXXIII [1683]
264 $1 A Paris : $b Par Christophe Ballard, seul imprimeur du
Roy pour la musique, ruë Saint Jean de Beauvais, au MontParnasse et se vend a la porte de l'Academie royale de
musique, ruë Saint Honoré, $c MDCLXXXIII [1683].
Production statement

264 $0 [Paris] :$b Copiez par ordre exprés de son Altesse Serenissme
Monseigneur le Comte de Toulouze, par M. Philidor l’ainé, ordinaire de la
Musique du Roy, & garde toute sa bibliotheque de musique, & par son fils
ainé : $c l’an 1703.
Transposition

 Allows transposition of elements to the appropriate
place in the description
 Allows transposition if the order of information in
the source would result in a transcription that is
confusing, awkward, or nonsensical
 Takes into account text size, typography, etc. that
imply a natural reading order
 Always make a note if transposed
No 4
F mineur
pour violoncelle & piano
for cello & piano
für Violoncelle & Pianoforte
DCRM(M) & RDA:
Extent

 Extent:
 DCRM rather than RDA conventions
Extent

 Score (RDA)
300 1 score (lxvi, 275 pages) ; $c 37 cm (folio)
or
300 1 score (2 unnumbered pages, lxvi, 275 pages, 1
unnumbered page) ; $c 37 cm (folio)
 Score (DCRM(M))
300
1 score ([2] pages, lxvi, 275 pages, [1] page) ; $c 37
cm (folio)
Notes

Notes are more extensive
 description of the artifact
 Signatures
 Form of printing; printing details, errors
 Quotation of information not part of any ISBD area
 Invocations, quotations, devices, announcements,
epigrams, mottoes, statements of privilege, dedications,
prices, performances, etc.
 False attributions, publication information
 Publication history
 References to published descriptions
Option:
Bibliographic variants

 Default cataloging level is the same as AACR2 or
RDA
 “edition” or (in bibliographic scholarship) “issue”
 Alternatives are provided that permit the creation of
separate bibliographic records for individual
impressions, states, binding variants, copies
 Must be applied consistently across the record
Other guidelines

 Collection-level cataloging (Appendix B)
 Capitalization (Appendix C)
 Variations requiring a new record (Appendix E)
 Early letterforms & symbols (Appendix G)
 Standard citations for Music materials (Appendix H)
 Glossary of terms
DCRM2

 RDA-based
 Integrated into RDA
 Will build on MLA Best Practices when possible
DCRM
The end …

[email protected]
DACS and Archival Music Collections:
A Crash Course for Music Librarians
Elizabeth Surles, MLIS, MM
Archivist, Institute of Jazz Studies
Dana Library, Rutgers University—Newark
Photo by E. Surles, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Library and Archives
What is archival description?
• Key difference from cataloging—focus on unique materials of
enduring value, typically described in bulk
• Terminology
•
•
•
•
Records
Papers
Collection
Finding Aid
• Core archival activity—key to access to archival collections
•
•
•
•
•
•
Contents
Creators
Dates
Relationships
Location and usage
Extent
Development & background of DACS
• 1967: AACR1 introduces descriptive specifications for items
and collections
• 1978: AACR2 further develops AACR1’s rules
• 1983: Steven Hensen compiles Archives, Personal Papers and
Manuscripts for the Library of Congress
• 1998: 2nd edition of Archives, Personal Papers and Manuscripts
from Society of American Archivists (SAA)
• 2004: SAA officially endorses adopts Describing Archives: A
Content Standard (DACS)
• 2013: SAA publishes DACS second edition
• 2015: SAA publishes DACS second edition with revisions
How is DACS organized?
• Four main parts
• Front matter—background and context, general introduction to
archival description
• Part I—levels of and rules for description
• Part II—archival authority records
• Appendices—companion standards and crosswalks
DACS guiding principles
• Principle 1: Records in archives possess unique characteristics.
• Principle 2: The principle of respect des fonds is the basis of
archival arrangement and description. (provenance and original
order)
• Principle 3: Arrangement involves the identification of groupings
within the material.
• Principle 4: Description reflects arrangement.
• Principle 5: The rules of description apply to all archival materials,
regardless of form or medium.
• Principle 6: The principles of archival description apply equally to
records created by corporate bodies, individuals, or families.
• Principle 7: Archival descriptions may be presented at varying
levels of detail to produce a variety of outputs.
• Principle 8: The creators of archival materials, as well as the
materials themselves, must be described.
DACS rules for describing archival materials:
Identity elements
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reference Code
Name and Location of Repository
Title
Date
Extent
Name of Creator(s)
Administrative/Biographical History
DACS rules for describing archival materials:
Content and structure elements
• Scope and Content
• System of Arrangement
DACS rules for describing archival materials:
Conditions of access and use elements
•
•
•
•
•
•
Conditions Governing Access
Physical Access
Technical Access
Conditions Governing Reproduction and Use
Languages and Scripts of the Material
Finding Aids
DACS rules for describing archival materials:
Acquisition and appraisal elements
•
•
•
•
Custodial History
Immediate Source of Acquisition
Appraisal, Destruction, and Scheduling Information
Accruals
DACS rules for describing archival materials:
Related materials elements
•
•
•
•
Existence and Location of Originals
Existence and Location of Copies
Related Archival Materials
Publication Note
DACS rules for describing archival materials:
Notes and Description control element
• Notes
• Not accommodated elsewhere
• Description control
• Sources, rules, finding aid author(s)
Single-level finding aid requirements
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reference code
Name and location of repository
Title
Date
Extent
Name of creator(s), if known
Scope and content
Conditions governing access
Languages and scripts of the materials
Single-Level Finding Aid
From: http://proust.library.miami.edu/findingaids/?p=collections/findingaid&id=700, accessed 5-16-15
SharingNotes, Elizabeth Surles
Multi-level finding aid requirements
• Top level
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reference code
Name and location of repository
Title
Date
Extent
Name of creator(s), if known
Scope and content
Conditions governing access
Languages and scripts of the materials
Identification of the whole-part relationship of the top level to at
least the next subsequent level in the multilevel description
Multi-level finding aid requirements, contd.
• Subsequent levels
• Follow requirements as for the top level, unless the information is
the same
• Some flexibility with names of creators and scope and content
(use title)
• Identification of the whole-part relationship of each level to at
least the next subsequent level
Multi-Level Finding Aid
From www2.scc.rutgers.edu/ead/ijs/lincolnf.html, accessed 5-16-15
DACS appendices
• Companion standards: RDA, DCRM, IASA cataloguing rules,
CCO, and more
• Crosswalks
Music materials and DACS: Scores
• No DACS-recommended standard for scores
• Published materials: RDA
• Rare books: DCRM(B)
• Serials: DCRM(S)
• Existing practice is idiosyncratic
• DCRM(M) as solution?
• Alternative: apply DACS conventions and supplement with
music-focused metadata
• Title, composer, score format (nature of materials), substitute
music-specific description for topical segment
• General description in scope and content note
• Decision points: granularity, user requirements, available
resources
• MLA/SAA-endorsed DACS supplement for scores?
Music materials and DACS:
Audiovisual recordings
• The IASA Cataloguing Rules: A Manual for the Description of
Sound Recordings and Related Audiovisual Media. Stockholm:
International Association of Sound and Audiovisual Archives,
1999. http://www.iasa-web.org/iasa-cataloguing-rules.
• Matters, Marion, comp. Oral History Cataloging Manual.
Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 1995.
Bibliography & Resources
•
Baca,
M. (2003). Practical issues in applying metadata schemas and controlled vocabularies to cultural
heritage information. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 36(3-4), 47-55. doi:10.1300/J104v36n03_05
•
Brimmer,
J. (2005). Providing a national resource: The management of music manuscripts in the UK. Journal of
the Society of Archivists, 26(2; 2), 215-232. doi:10.1080/00039810500284713
•
Brylawski,
S., Lerman, M., Pike, R., and Smith, K. (2015). ARSC guide to audio preservation. Retrieved from
http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub164/pub164.pdf
•
Carson,
A., Hansen, T., and Sears, J. Encoded Archival Description (EAD) & Describing Archives: A Content
Standard (DACS). PowerPoint Presentation. SlideServe. Accessed February 15, 2016. Retrieved from
http://www.slideserve.com/hamlin/encoded-archival-description-ead-describing-archives-a-contentstandard-dacs.
Cuervo,
A. P., and Harbeson, E. (2011). Not just sheet music: Describing print and manuscript music in
•
archives and special collections. Archival Issues: Journal of the Midwest Archives Conference, 33(1), 41-55.
Garrison,
E. (1996). Neither fish nor fowl nor good red meat: Using archival descriptive techniques for special
•
format materials. Archival Issues, 21(1), 61-71.
Hooper,
L. (2014). Keeping time: An introduction to archival best practices for music librarians. Middleton,
•
Wis.: A-R Editions; Music Library Association.
Hooper,
L. (2011). Moving to preserve the past: Current state of archival music collections and future
•
possibilities. Music Reference Services Quarterly, 14(1), 14.
Huck,
J. (2010). Descriptive metadata for audio-oriented digital collections. Retrieved from
•
http://capping.slis.ualberta.ca/cap10/JohnHuck/
Jeffrey,
D. H. (2005). The repository of last resort? three-dimensional objects in archives (Master's thesis).
•
Retrieved from Carolina Digital Repository. doi:uuid:ad19d700-b1f0-4be8-b8a0-c786cf507746
Lance,
D., & International Association of Sound Archives. (1983). Sound archives: A guide to their
•
establishment and development. London: International Association of Sound Archives.
McKnight, M. (2002). Music classification systems. Lanham, Md. ; London; Middleton, Wis.: Scarecrow Press;
•
Music Library Association.
Bibliography & Resources, contd.
•
McShea,
M. (2015). Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution, Guidelines for processing collections with
audiovisual material. Retrieved from http://www.aaa.si.edu/files/documentation/2015-aaa-av-processingguidelines.pdf
•
Mudge,
S., & Hoek, D. J. (2000). Describing jazz, blues, and popular 78 RPM sound recordings: Suggestions and
guidelines. Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, 29(3), 21-48.
•
Pruter,
R. (2000). Words and music: Understanding the value of textual content on commercial sound recording
labels. Archival Issues, 25(1/2), 57-68.
• Music Implementation Task Force, Music Library Association. (2015). Best practices for music cataloging using
RDA
RDA and MARC21. Version 1.1. Retrieved from http://bcc.musiclibraryassoc.org/BCCHistorical/BCC2015/RDA_Best_Practices_for_Music_Cataloging_v1.1-150217.pdf
Riley,
• J. & Dalmau, M. (2007). The IN harmony project: Developing a flexible metadata model for the description
and discovery of sheet music. The Electronic Library, 25(2), 132-147.
Sepko,
D. (2013). Sound records: Genre and popular music in rules for archival description. IASA Journal, (40), 5.
•
Smiraglia,
R. P., & Pavlovsky, T. (1997). Describing music materials : A manual for descriptive cataloging of printed
•
and recorded music, music videos, and archival music collections : For use with AACR2 and APPM (3rd, rev. and
enl. ed.). Lake Crystal, Minn: Soldier Creek Press.
Smiraglia,
R. P., & Young, J. B. (2006). Bibliographic control of music, 1897-2000. Lanham, Md: Scarecrow Press.
•
Society
of American Archivists, (2013). Describing archives: A content standard, second edition. Chicago: Society
•
of American Archivists. Retrieved from http://files.archivists.org/pubs/DACS2E-2013_v0315.pdf.
Thomas,
D. H. (1990). Cataloging sound recordings using archival methods. Cataloging and Classification Quarterly,
•
11(3-4), 193-212.
Whittaker,
B.M. (2007). DACS and RDA: Insight and questions from the new archival descriptive standard. Library
•
Resources and Technical Services, 51 (2), 98-105.
Weitz,
• J., & Sheehy, M. (2004). Cataloger's judgment: Music cataloging questions and answers from the music
OCLC users group newsletter. Westport, Conn; London: Libraries Unlimited.
White,
L. (2002). Museum implementation of encoded archival description. Art Documentation: Bulletin of the Art
•
Libraries Society of North America, 21(1), 15-20.
Encoded Archival
Description and You
Maristella Feustle, University of North Texas
Music Library Association, Cincinnati, OH
3/5/2015
What is EAD?
- The machine-readable framework for archival
description.
- Analogous to MARC in conventional cataloging, but
organized to serve different needs
- Hierarchical description
- Written in XML -- eXtensible Markup Language
- Standardizable, but able to be adapted according
to consensus of user community
- Tag structure familiar to HTML users
- Companion framework to Encoded Archival Context
-
Society of American Archivists’ Technical
Overseen by the
Subcommittee for Encoded Archival Description
Content standards and frameworks: a family history
AACR2, Chapter 4 → Archives, Personal Papers,
and Manuscripts (APPM), 1983, 1989
Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC)
International Standard Archival Description—
General, 1990, 1993/1994
DACS Part I, successor of APPM, derived from
ISAD(G), 2004, 2013
EAD, 1999, 2002, 2015
Common ancestor of DACS Part I and EAD: ISAD(G)
EAD is more easily explained in light of DACS’
statement of principles, but was actually in
development first.
Originally a project at UC Berkeley in 1993.
Predates XML - first relied on SGML.
EAD 1.0 - 1999
EAD 2002
EAD 3 - brand new
Why EAD?
Libraries: one big general collection, organized
hierarchically
Fairly uniform characteristics for description
Archives: a collection of distinct collections,
organized hierarchically unto themselves (DACS
principles 1, 2, 3, 4)
Need for flexibility (DACS principles 5, 6, 7)
Expanded importance of creators (DACS
principle 8)
Extensibility of XML
HTML vs. XML
HTML: components and
their relationships are
already defined
XML needs to be able to
refer to definitions.
Document Type
Definition (DTD) or XML
Schema Definition (XSD)
What makes EAD “EAD” is
the set of components
and relationships defined
for it.
DTD or XSD?
DTD is the older format.
Most archival description platforms now export
XSD-compliant (schema-compliant) EAD.
The decision on which to use will likely be made
for you by institution, platform, consortium, or
best practice guidelines (BPGs).
Best Practice Guidelines (BPG)
RLG - the “granddaddy” BPG
Others: OAC, Yale, LC, Ohiolink, OrbisCascade,
TARO (in progress)
Help give structure to the 146 elements
Overview of EAD
146 elements, represented by <tags>
An EAD document has 3 segments, which correspond to
familiar components in a non-encoded finding aid:
<eadheader> contains information about the
document itself
<frontmatter> contains prefatory information about
the collection
– not required
<archdesc> describes the actual contents of the
collection.
Tiered approach to required and optional degrees of
description, like DACS
<nested><tags></tags></nested>
Templates, examples, exports, and
editors
Hand-coding can be a good way to get a handle on the details of
EAD, but chances are good that you won’t have to re-invent the
wheel
- Institutional templates
- Library of Congress encoded examples (EAD 2002, CDLib BPG)
- Exporting EAD from Archon, Archives Space, AtoM, Archivists’
Toolkit, XTF
- XML editors: oXygen, Altova, MS Visual Studio, ArchivesHub
(UK)
Examples
http://eadiva.com/ead-samples-from-the-field/
How much is “enough?”
The correct answer to
many questions of
archival practice is
“That depends.”
MPLP - iterative
workflows; DACS
principle 7.1.
But wait, there’s more!
DACS Principle 8 specifies that the creator of an
archival collection must be described along with
the materials.
As archival collections have unique characteristics
(Principle 1), the descriptive needs for their
creators also call for specialized requirements.
Hence: Part II of DACS, and the companion
framework, Encoded Archival Context (EAC).
Context is king
Collection and creator are inextricably related.
Understand the collection ← → Understand the
creator.
Collection as an “autobiography of things.”
ISAAR-CPF
International Standard Authority Record for
Corporate Bodies, Persons, and Families,
companion standard to ISAD(G)
ISAAR-CPF: description of creators is “an essential
activity of archivists”:
1. to describe the creator or creators of an archival collection — corporate bodies, persons, or
families — within an archival descriptive system
2. to control the creation and use of access points in archival descriptions
3. to show relationships between different creators, and between the people and the
documents they created, and/or other resources about or by them.
ISAAR-CPF is the common ancestor of DACS Part II and EAC-CPF (short form: “EAC”).
EAC: A brief history
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1993, Yale
1998, Yale and Toronto
2001, “The Toronto Tenets”
ISAAR-CPF, 2nd ed., 2003
EAC-CPF beta, 2004
“Standards and exchange formats for interoperability among
archival information systems” conference, May, 2008
Schema and tag library, August, 2009
Published in 2010, endorsed by SAA in 2011.
Maintained jointly by SAA and Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin
Still a work in progress, governance may be merged with EAD
EAC basics
Based on the four elements required by ISAAR-CPF and
DACS Part II, EAC-CPF names two mandatory elements:
• the <control> element
• either the element <cpfDescription> or
<multipleIdentities>.
–The <multipleIdentities> element “is used when
there is more than one <cpfDescription>.”
• immediate relationship between EAC and DACS Part II
is less apparent, but does not take much digging
DACS Part II and EAC
DACS Part II, minimum requirements, crosswalked to EAC:
- Authorized form of name (see 10.1) → <nameEntry> or
<nameEntryParallel> with <authorizedForm>
- Type of entity (see 10.2) → <entityType>
- Dates of existence (see 11.1) → <existDate>
- Authority record identifier (see 13.2) → <recordId>
- These requirements are subelements of the required
EAC elements.
DACS Part II elements situated in
EAC record
<control>
<recordID>
<cpfDescription>
<identity> → <nameEntry>
<description> → <existDate>
OR <multipleidentities>, a “wrapper” for 2 or
more <cfpDescription> elements
Defining relationships
Context
Discoverability
A word about finding aids
Differentiates the archival descriptive document from
conventional “catalog” record.
Access to Memory (AtoM)
ArchivesSpace → successor of Archivists’ Toolkit and
Archon
- less of a learning curve coming from Archivists’ Toolkit
- extremely comprehensive
XTF
CuadraStar, Aeon
Much will depend on your institution, repository size, and
users.
Finding aid comparisons
“A Place for Our Stuff: Evaluating Archival Content
Management Systems”
http://images.library.amnh.org/hiddencollectio
ns/2014/11/a-place-for-our-stuff-evaluatingarchival-content-management-systems/
Everything imaginable:
https://www.loc.gov/rr/print/resource/229_c
atfindaid.html
Sources and further reading
• Encoded Archival Description
https://www.loc.gov/ead/
http://eadiva.com
• Meissner & Greene, MPLP
http://www2.archivists.org/node/17276
• Encoded Archival Context
http://eac.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/
http://www2.archivists.org/groups/technicalsubcommittee-on-eac-cpf/encoded-archivalcontext-corporate-bodies-persons-and-familieseac-cpf
Sources and further reading,
continued
• SNAC
http://socialarchive.iath.virginia.edu/
• Selecting finding aid platforms: “A Place for Our
Stuff: Evaluating Archival Content Management
Systems”
http://images.library.amnh.org/hiddencollectio
ns/2014/11/a-place-for-our-stuff-evaluatingarchival-content-management-systems/
Selecting Standards for Rare and
Archival Materials
Elizabeth Hobart
Special Collections and Humanities
Cataloger
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
General Principles
• There is no one right answer
• In consultation with your colleagues, consider
what will be best for your materials and your
patrons
• How much staff time can you invest?
• Just because an item is in a rare book library
doesn’t mean it needs rare book cataloging
• Consider having an institutional policy
General Principles
• DCRM(M) X.1. Decisions to make before
beginning the description
– X.1.1. Item-level vs. collection-level description
– X.1.2. Analysis: Description of the whole vs. part
– X.1.3. Cataloging code: AACR2 and RDA vs.
DCRM(M)
– X.1.4. Encoding level: DCRM(M) minimal vs. full
– X.1.5. Bibliographic variants
Overview
• Archival description or bibliographic
cataloging?
• Bibliographic cataloging:
– General code (e.g., RDA)
• “Special Collections Cataloging”
– DCRM(M)
Archival Description or Cataloging?
“Altogether, archival description is much more
freewheeling than book cataloging.”
Margaret F. Nichols, "The Cataloger and the Archivist Should be Friends: Or, Herding
vs. Milking Special Collections," RBM: A Journal of Rare Books, Manuscripts, and
Cultural Heritage 21, no. 1 (2011): 27.
Archival Description or Cataloging?
Collection-level or itemlevel?
Archival Description
Cataloging
Collection-level, with
possible item-level
details; ideal for a big
picture overview of a
collection
Typically item-level; ideal
for describing individual
items in greater detail
Archival Description or Cataloging?
Archival Description
Cataloging
Collection-level or itemlevel?
Collection-level, with
possible item-level
details; ideal for a big
picture overview of a
collection
Typically item-level; ideal
for describing individual
items in greater detail
Types of material
Any, but typically
unpublished
Any
Archival Description or Cataloging?
Archival Description
Cataloging
Collection-level or itemlevel?
Collection-level, with
possible item-level
details; ideal for a big
picture overview of a
collection
Typically item-level; ideal
for describing individual
items in greater detail
Types of material
Any, but typically
unpublished
Any
Organization
Keeps collections
together (principle of
respect des fonds)
More difficult to keep
collections together
Archival Description or Cataloging?
Archival Description
Cataloging
Collection-level or itemlevel?
Collection-level, with
possible item-level
details; ideal for a big
picture overview of a
collection
Typically item-level; ideal
for describing individual
items in greater detail
Types of material
Any, but typically
unpublished
Any
Organization
Keeps collections
together (principle of
respect des fonds)
More difficult to keep
collections together
Layout
Hierarchical
Typically item-by item
Archival Description or Cataloging?
Archival Description
Cataloging
Collection-level or itemlevel?
Collection-level, with
possible item-level
details; ideal for a big
picture overview of a
collection
Typically item-level; ideal
for describing individual
items in greater detail
Types of material
Any, but typically
unpublished
Any
Organization
Keeps collections
together (principle of
respect des fonds)
More difficult to keep
collections together
Layout
Hierarchical
Typically item-by item
Summarizing
Differentiating
Cataloging
• Options:
– General cataloging codes (e.g., RDA)
• Special collections cataloging
– DCRM(M)
RDA (or other general code)
• Advantages:
– Staff will generally already be trained in cataloging
using a general code
– RDA can be scaled depending on the needs of the
material
• e.g., 3.12 Book Format, 3.22 Note on Item-Specific
Carrier Characteristics (3.22.1.4 for early printed
resources; 3.22.2 for extent), 3.22.2.9 (instructions for
recording signature statements)
– Generally faster than full rare book cataloging
RDA (or other general code)
• Disadvantages:
– Although instructions exist for rare materials, they are
typically brief
– RDA includes fewer instructions for describing
bibliographic variants and items, which can lead to less rich
description for rare and unique materials
“AACR2 and RDA are more suitable when, in an
institutional context, a resource was acquired and is of
significance primarily for its content rather than its
artifactual value. … DCRM(M) is most suitable when an
item carries artifactual or bibliographical significance, or
it is otherwise important to provide distinctions
between issues, bibliographical variants, or individual
copies.”—DCRM(M) X.1.3.
“Special Collections Cataloging”
• Not an official standard
• “Follow[s] the spirit of DCRM(M)”—DCRM(M)
A7
• General cataloging, enhanced with more
notes, access points, and other elements
• DCRM(M) suggests this for 19th-century and
later materials housed in special collections
DCRM(M)
• Advantages:
– Fuller descriptions
– Faithful transcription
– Instructions designed to distinguish between
bibliographical variants and individual items
– Ideal for describing materials collected for artifactual value
• Disadvantages:
– Time consuming
– Requires staff to be familiar with multiple cataloging codes
– May require greater expertise than general cataloging (e.g.,
descriptive bibliography, knowledge of reference sources,
ability to describe binding and printing processes)
DCRM(M)
• Decisions:
– DCRM(M) with AACR2 or with RDA and the BIBCO
Standard Record (BSR)?
– Minimal or full record?
• Instructions for minimal-level records recorded in DCRM(M)
Appendix D
• Rules for DCRM(M), omitting notes and abridging description
wherever permissible
• Optionally, notes and access points may be added
“Libraries most often turn to minimal-level cataloging to
create accession records for new acquisitions, to provide
access to low-priority unprocessed collections in backlogs,
and for item-level access to digital images.”—DCRM(M) D1.
DCRM(M)
• Decisions:
– DCRM(M) with AACR2 or with RDA and the BIBCO
Standard Record (BSR)?
– Minimal or full record?
– Apply alternative guidelines?
• Alternative guidelines allow catalogers to create
separate records in cases where standard rules would
typically not permit new records
• Guidelines are embedded in the DCRM(M) text, but set
apart
DCRM(M)
• Decisions:
– DCRM(M) with AACR2 or with RDA and the BIBCO Standard
Record (BSR)?
– Minimal or full record?
– Apply alternative guidelines?
• Alternative guidelines allow catalogers to create separate records in
cases where standard rules would typically not permit new records
• Guidelines are embedded in the DCRM(M) text, but set apart
• They must all be applied, or none may be applied
• Some factors to consider in applying alternative guidelines (DCRM(M)
E2.2):
– Comprehensiveness of a collection
– User needs
– Staffing levels
Decision Tree
Collection-level or item-level?
Summarizing
Differentiating
Decision Tree
Collection-level or item-level?
Summarizing
Archival Description
Differentiating
Bibliographic Cataloging
Decision Tree
Bibliographic Cataloging
Content?
Artifact?
Decision Tree
Bibliographic Cataloging
Content?
General code (RDA, AACR2)
Artifact?
Decision Tree
Bibliographic Cataloging
Content?
General code (RDA, AACR2)
Artifact?
DCRM(M)
Decision Tree
Bibliographic Cataloging
Content?
General code (RDA, AACR2)
Additional notes and access points?
Artifact?
DCRM(M)
Decision Tree
Bibliographic Cataloging
Content?
General code (RDA, AACR2)
Additional notes and access points?
Special Collections Cataloging
Artifact?
DCRM(M)
Decision Tree
Bibliographic Cataloging
Content?
General code (RDA, AACR2)
Additional notes and access points?
Special Collections Cataloging
Artifact?
DCRM(M)
Decision Tree
DCRM(M)
Decision Tree
DCRM(M)
AACR2
RDA/BSR
Decision Tree
DCRM(M)
Basic, accessionlevel records?
Full, detailed
records?
Decision Tree
DCRM(M)
Basic, accessionlevel records?
Minimal-level record
Full, detailed
records?
Decision Tree
DCRM(M)
Basic, accessionlevel records?
Minimal-level record
Full, detailed
records?
Full-level record
Decision Tree
DCRM(M)
Basic, accessionlevel records?
Minimal-level record
Full, detailed
records?
Full-level record
Comprehensive
collection? (e.g.,
many variants)
Decision Tree
DCRM(M)
Basic, accessionlevel records?
Minimal-level record
Full, detailed
records?
Full-level record
Comprehensive
collection? (e.g.,
many variants)
Alternative guidelines
Decision Tree
DCRM(M)
Basic, accessionlevel records?
Minimal-level record
Full, detailed
records?
Full-level record
Comprehensive
collection? (e.g.,
many variants)
Alternative guidelines
Standard DCRM(M)
cataloging
Questions?
Nancy Lorimer
Elizabeth Surles
Maristella Feustle
Elizabeth Hobart
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]