RDA and Rare Books Cataloging, Part 1

Mary Burns

Mary Burns (mburns6@niu.edu) is a Catalog Librarian and Assistant Professor at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Illinois.

Manuscript submitted December 19, 2016; returned to author for revision February 23, 2017; revised manuscript submitted April 24, 2017; revised manuscript sent for peer review December 4, 2017; revised manuscript submitted February 11, 2018; accepted for publication May 13, 2018.

Editor’s Note: Due to the length of this paper and the complexity of the topic, this paper will be published in two parts. Part 1 includes resource description for a rare book and extends to 260 $a Place of Publication ; 264 1 $a Place of Publication ; 264 3 $a Place of Manufacture. The remainder of the description provided will be published in part 2. Part 2 will be published in Library Resources and Technical Services (LRTS) volume 63, number 1 (January 2019).

Catalogers using Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials: Books (DCRM(B)) were challenged when the Library of Congress (LC) adopted Resource Description and Access (RDA). DCRM(B) is based on AACR2, which is organized according to International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD) areas. RDA is based on FRBR. As of this writing, the RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee intends to finish an initial version of RBMS Policy Statements for the RDA Toolkit. During the interim, the Bibliographic Standards Committee website states: “The Bibliographic Standards Committee is neutral regarding RDA, neither encouraging nor discouraging agencies regarding implementation of RDA-acceptable DCRM records.” The Committee provides rare book catalogers with two options. The first instructs catalogers to form descriptive portions of records according to DCRM(B) and AACR2, using RDA for access points. The second option directs catalogers to create RDA records using the PCC-RDA BIBCO Standard Record (BSR) that includes rare materials provisions. This paper discusses the creation process of three catalog records for the same rare book developed according to DCRM(B), the PCC-RDA-BSR with rare materials provisions and RDA with exceptions for early printed resources.

Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Books), first published in 2007, was the first in a series of manuals developed for rare materials in various formats, Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (DCRM).1 It is based on AACR2 as amended by the Library of Congress Rule Interpretations (LCRI) and the second edition of ISBD(A), the International Standard Bibliographic Description for Older Monographic Publications (Antiquarian). DCRM(B) differs from earlier editions of the rare book cataloging rules because it can be used to catalog printed monographs “of any age or type of production” and is not limited to pre-1801 imprints.2 It contains instructions relating to headings and access points but does not instruct catalogers on how to create controlled headings for main and added entries.

DCRM(B) was preceded by the Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Books (DCRB), produced in 1991 and the Bibliographic Description of Rare Books (BDRB) (1981). BDRB was developed in response to the publication of ISBD(A). An Association of College and Research Libraries’ (ACRL) Bibliographic Standards Committee, Rare Book and Manuscript Section (RBMS) task force participated in the ISBD(A) review process. The Anglo-American rare materials community then decided that a new standard based on AACR2, but separate from it, was needed. BDRB represented a “synthesis of AACR2’s chapters 1 (General Rules for Description) and 2 (Books, Pamphlets, and Printed Sheets) and ISBD(A) rules.”3 DCRB, a revised version of BDRB, was written in response to the revision of ISBD(A) in 1991.

Resource Description and Access (RDA) was originally intended as a major revision of AACR2. The Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR2 (JSC) began meeting in 2003 to draft AACR3. Work was underway for DCRM(B) when AACR3 was announced. The DCRM(B) editors considered postponing work until RDA was published, then rejected the idea. A delay was deemed unwise because considerable progress had been made and a significant amount of time, labor, and money had been invested in the project.4 A draft of AACR3 Part I was reviewed by the ALA Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA) in December 2004. In January 2005, the JSC and CC:DA solicited comments from working catalogers. Since the draft was not well received, a decision was made in April 2005 to adopt an entirely new approach.5 The standard was titled Resource Description and Access (RDA) and the Committee changed its name to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA. AACR2 was conceived for the card catalog environment, and the new standard was designed to accommodate digital resources. The JSC developed RDA between 2005 and 2009 as part of its strategic plan.6 The RDA Toolkit was released June 2010. After testing by the national libraries and other institutions from October through December 2010, LC adopted the standard on March 31, 2013.

The PCC-RDA-BIBCO Standard Record (BSR) was released on January 13, 2013, for use by the PCC community in BIBCO-coded records.7 Revisions to the standard were released on June 13, 2016, and September 6, 2017. The PCC-RDA-BSR contains special instructions for rare materials catalogers and some elements contained in the standard include rare materials provisions that override RDA instructions and guidelines. The introduction explains that the PCC-RDA-BSR consists of RDA “Core,” RDA “Core if,” “PCC Core,” and “PCC Recommended” elements that can be used to catalog “archival materials, audio recordings, cartographic resources, electronic resources (if cataloged in the computer file format), graphic materials, moving images, notated music, rare materials, and textual monographs.”8 The standard is meant to outline a minimal set of elements that emphasize access points over descriptive data. This minimal set is considered necessary to meet user needs. Catalogers are not limited to the base set of elements and may provide a fuller bibliographic description.

RDA development and its influence on DCRM(B) can be gleaned from the ALA ACRL RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee (BSC) ALA Annual and Midwinter meeting minutes.9 The BSC is charged “to serve as the ALA representative of rare book, manuscript, and other special collections librarians and curators in all matters involving standards for providing intellectual access to and bibliographic description of those collections.”10 The minutes contain reports from a CC:DA liaison and RBMS BSC activities. The liaison provided updates on policies considered of interest to the BSC that the JSC or RDA Steering Committee (RSC) were developing. The BSC used the DCRM-L listserv to promote discussion and solicit feedback on RDA and rare materials cataloging issues. Postings are available in the DCRM-L listserv archive.11

The BSC responded to RDA development by revising or developing new rare materials cataloging rules, beginning with the failed project to revise AACR2. The joint ALCTS/ACRL Task Force on Cataloging Rules for Early Printed Monographs was initiated by CC:DA with the ACRL RMBS BSC in 2004.12 The task force was charged to investigate using the rules for early printed monographs in AACR2, chapter 2. It produced its final report in July 2004 and a Report on the Rules for Early Printed Resources in the Draft of AACR3 Part 1 in February 2005.13

After the RDA Toolkit was released, Maxwell and Attig produced a discussion paper, “Reconsidering DCRM in the Light of RDA.”14 Section IV highlighted differences between AACR2 and RDA. Section III included suggestions for redefining DCRM’s relationship with RDA. Attig presented the paper at the BSC’s 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting, generating lengthy discussion on several issues.15 At the BSC’s meeting during the 2011 ALA Annual Meeting a DCRM/RDA task force was formed. Their charge stated: “In light of the recommendations of Attig/Maxwell discussion paper, and the need for further analysis of issues involved in modifying DCRM in response to implementation of RDA, the Task Force is charged, in general, to develop recommendations on the relationship between DCRM and RDA for consideration by Bibliographic Standards Committee (BSC).”16 The task force issued its final report October 10, 2012. They recommended that RDA, as modified by Library of Congress-Program for Cooperative Cataloging Policy Statements (LCC-PCC-PSs), should become the new standard on which DCRM is based.17 They also recommended that the BSC’s primary focus should be writing a complete revision of DCRM(B) based on RDA, and that agencies wanting to create RDA records for rare materials for immediate use apply the rare materials provisions included in the forthcoming BIBCO Standard Record (BSR).

The BSC contributed to the development of the rare materials provisions for the PCC-RDA-BSR released on January 13, 2013. The PCC charged a BSC task force to develop a new RDA BIBCO Standard Record (BSR) for rare materials in 2012.18 The BSC task force developed the standard from a finished draft of the RDA BSR for textual monographs. Although the BSC task force intended to create a document for use with rare books, the PCC aimed to present a single BSR applicable to all format types. After RDA was released in 2010, and before the PCC-RDA-BSR was issued in 2013, rare materials catalogers had two standards from which to choose. The BSC task force evaluating RDA’s impact on DCRM reported at the BSC’s meeting during the 2012 ALA Midwinter Meeting that they would draft an interim statement regarding DCRM and RDA for an online vote.19 In 2012, the BSC advised catalogers to continue using DCRM alone for the description of books and serials. Catalogers were instructed to not incorporate elements or practices based on RDA into DCRM descriptions.20

After the BSC Task Force on DCRM and RDA finished its work in October 2012, another BSC task force was formed to reorganize DCRM(B) according to RDA. The DCRM(B) for RDA Editorial Team was charged with completely revising DCRM(B) based on RDA, including changes in terminology, structure, and examples.21 The DCRM(B) for RDA Editorial Team, referred to as the DCRM(B) for RDA Revision Group, changed direction in 2013. It considered a proposal to create a unified DCRM standard that addressed all formats. The proposal was posted to DCRM-L for comments and was discussed by the Revision Group. It was decided that a consolidated DCRM text was desirable and should be considered a new text rather than a revision of DCRM(B).22

The DCRM for RDA Revision Group renamed itself DCRM2 at the BSC’s meeting during the 2014 ALA Midwinter Meeting. The task force was renamed the ACRL/RBMS Descriptive Cataloging for Rare Materials Task Force and charged with creating an initial version of a consolidated Descriptive Cataloging for Rare Material (DCRM) standard based on RDA.23 The charge ended on June 30, 2016, and was extended to June 30, 2017.24 The DCRM Task Force used DCRM-L to address issues, conduct surveys, and solicit feedback from the rare books cataloging community. The issues they addressed while developing a consolidated DCRM include how to transcribe punctuation, misprints, and typographical errors, and what constitutes an “early printed resource.”25 In 2014, the task force surveyed the rare materials cataloging community on possible DCRM2 implementation scenarios. The results showed that most of the responding institutions were using AACR/DCRM for rare materials cataloging and RDA for non-rare materials.26

The DCRM Task Force discussed with ALA Publishing how the new DCRM text would be incorporated into the RDA Toolkit. Based on these discussions, the task force planned for the new DCRM text to follow the model of LC’s Program for Cooperative Cataloging Policy Statements (LC-PCC-PS).27 The final product would be called RBMS Policy Statements (RBMS PS).28 The RBMS PS will be integrated into the RDA Toolkit like the LC-PCC-PS. The DCRM Task Force identified four ways that the RBMS PS can relate to RDA guidelines: (1) Where the RDA policy statement is sufficient for rare materials cataloging, nothing is added to the text; (2) When LC-PCC-PS is sufficient, the RBMS PS will point to it; (3) If the RDA guidelines need augmentation for rare materials cataloging, a RBMS PS is provided; and (4) If the RDA guidelines conflict with DCRM principles, the RBMS PS will provide guidance. After a review process and subsequent approval, the RBMS PS will be published as a part of the RDA Toolkit. It is anticipated the RBMS PS will not go live until the RDA Restructure and Redesign project is finished in 2018.

In November 2015, the RDA Steering Committee (RSC) became more involved in the development of RDA for cataloging rare materials. The RSC decided at its meeting in Scotland to form a working group to address RDA’s treatment of rare materials. The group was established in March 2016. The Terms of Reference for the RSC Rare Materials Working Group outlined its goals.29 The RSC aims to develop RDA for a wider range of materials than printed materials. The RSC also “expects to expand the coverage and refine the detail of the description of and access to rare items.”30 The working group, which includes RBMS members, is charged with assisting the RSC in developing the treatment of rare materials in RDA. The DCRM Task Force noted that the RSC meeting planned for November 2016 in Frankfurt, Germany, was “a demonstration of the RSC’s desire to increased RDA adoption in Europe and beyond.”31

Literature Review

There is little literature dedicated to RDA development and its impact on rare book cataloging rules. Maxwell demonstrated the practical application of RDA to rare books cataloging for the ALCTS webinar “Rare Materials and RDA: Exploring the Issues” in 2012.32 A MARC bibliographic record was created field by field for the rare book Modus epistolandi copendiosissimus et facillimus by Poggio Bracciolini, which was produced in Paris in 1505.

After LC adopted RDA in 2013, the effects of the new standard on rare book and rare materials cataloging in general began to be addressed. The conflicting purposes of the two standards is made clear by multiple authors. Nimer and Daines point out that the DCRM standards, based on AACR2, are specialized rules designed to create descriptions that meet the needs of expert researchers.33 RDA, based on FRBR, is a general-purpose cataloging standard that provides guidelines based on user needs. Elings and Brandt, writing about the future of technical services, discuss linked data with its promise to improve the processing of information resources and to enhance discovery and access. RDA was designed for a linked-data environment where catalogers identify entities as opposed to describing them.34 Although the purposes of the two standards are fundamentally different, they maintain that rare materials catalogers have an advantage over general materials catalogers based on RDA and DCRM commonalities. They cite RDA guidelines for transcribing information as it appears on the source—the same rules provided in DCRM. Writing shortly after RDA was officially accepted and acknowledging the BSC’s continuing efforts to adapt DCRM to RDA, they declare that it is time to fully get on board the RDA bandwagon.35

Elings and Brandt give an extensive summary of the outcomes of the discussions resulting from Maxwell and Attig’s paper “Reconsidering DCRM in the Light of RDA,” which was presented at BSC’s meeting during the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting and at the preconference discussion session. They note that by the end of the preconference discussion session there was almost equal support from participants of the three different approaches to adapting DCRM to RDA. One group favored an interim ISBD revision, a second supported a complete revision based on RDA, and a third group was undecided. Nimer and Daines acknowledge that the rare book community is slowly working toward accommodation and implementation since RDA’s release. They highlight the six-month period that DCRM and RDA coexisted before the PCC-RDA-BSR was released. The BSC addressed the need to make an interim statement at their ALA Midwinter meeting.36 The BSC’s website advised catalogers not to incorporate RDA elements or practices into their descriptions based on DCRM until the PCC-RDA-BSR was released.37

MacDonald and Quarmby Lawrence addressed the impact on catalogers and cataloging departments using both RDA and DCRM(B).38 The Edinburgh University Library adopted RDA as the in-house cataloging standard for modern materials in 2014. The metadata team included thirteen highly skilled cataloging and classification staff, seven of them trained in DCRM(B). After RDA adoption, it was recognized that clear guidelines were needed to specify what standard to use for cataloging diverse types of material. A DCRM(B) policy was in place but lacked the specifics needed for cataloging books produced after 1800. Rare book catalogers were unsure of which standard to use with exceptional examples of otherwise routine publications. A new policy that aimed to empower catalogers to use discretion when choosing between RDA and DCRM(B) was developed. In general, the EUL catalogs books to full DCRM(B) that fit any of these criteria:

• All items printed up to about 1850, which are or appear to be the products of the hand press (i.e., everything printed up to 1820) and later items with the features of hand-press printing (e.g., traditional bibliographical signatures).
• Later items with special characteristics that demand fuller bibliographical description (e.g., modern hand-press books), items with special physical features that are to be fully described (e.g., bindings or illustrations), and items that are the subject of close bibliographical analysis.
• Later items that complete a set or run that started in the hand-press period and has otherwise been cataloged to DCRMB.39

Sjökvist discusses another aspect of rare books cataloging practice that needs clarification—title transcription. He explains the incongruity of RDA rules that direct catalogers to transcribe what they see with rare book cataloging standards that instruct catalogers to normalize the transcription of titles.40 Materials cataloged for the Swedish union catalog Libris generally follow ISBD (consolidated ed. 2011). The National Library of Sweden emphasizes the importance of transcribing a title page verbatim to distinguish different editions. However, Sjökvist explains that the library policy allows catalogers to deviate from this practice if needed. Misprints in the text are followed by “[sic]” and blank spaces are indicated with “[blank space]” within square brackets. Catalogers are instructed that various forms of commas and hyphens found on the original should be transcribed as ordinary commas and hyphens. The virgule (/) is usually transcribed as a normal comma. Dots are transcribed as they appear, but spaces in the title are normalized. Line breaks are not represented in a transcription and hyphens at line breaks are not recorded. The use of lowercase and uppercase letters is normalized according to modern principles. Sjökvist suggests that the argument for careful transcription to help the user distinguish between different editions sounds odd given the level of deviation from the original source that can result. He points out the transcription rules in DCRM(B) give a similar impression. Sjökvist suggests titles recorded in the 245 field should be transcribed closely following the original for purposes of identification. The normalized forms of titles should be recorded as variant titles in 246 fields for retrieval purposes.

High, in a brief introduction to rare book cataloging, credits RDA with making the work of rare books catalogers more intelligible to users. It accomplishes this by eliminating the use of Latin terms that have the potential to mystify rather than clarify.41 He cites misprints in titles that are no longer followed by “[sic]” and are instead indicated in a 500 note that records the correct spelling. The replacement of “s.l.” and “s.n.” with “No identifiable place of publication” and “No identifiable publisher” is another improvement. He emphasizes the importance of recording an ESTC number in a 510 field. The ESTC number is like an ISBN for each edition of a book published in English-speaking countries before 1801. It records differences between editions that are not always obvious, such as printing errors and the number of booksellers or printers appearing on a title page. This argument for the importance of the 510 field in rare books records is highly relevant since the RSC rejected the BSC proposal to add referential relationships to RDA and formal instructions for creating citation forms that are recorded in the 510 field.42 High’s overview of rare book cataloging includes a description of the 561 field used to record ownership and custodial history of a rare book and the 563 field used to record binding information. This approach differs from DCRM(B) practice, which directs recording copy-specific information in a 590 local note. An international cataloging practice differs from an Anglo-American DCRM(B) cataloging practice. These different practices support García-Monge and Green’s observation that international approaches to copy-specific information in books, manuscripts, or objects must be developed so catalogers do not rely on local decisions to record provenance, binding, physical condition, or handwritten annotations.43 The BSC’s work and the international rare materials cataloging community has been moving gradually toward developing both a single international standard for cataloging rare materials and a single standard that can be applied to all types of rare materials.

Nimer and Daines state that the descriptive practices in American libraries, historical societies, and archives are complex and involve a wide range of standards. It is their hope that future standards will be developed that enable cross-community sharing. They suggest this could be accomplished by creating modular standards with a common core that allows for sharing of information, plus extensions to meet the needs of different user communities.44 In a recent issue of Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, García-Monge and Green state in the issue’s introduction that the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions’ (IFLA) Rare Books and Special Collections Section (RBSCS) has provided a long-standing forum for discussion and exchange of information on matters of particular concern to rare books, manuscript, and special collections librarians.45 They report on the IFLA RBSCS’s activities, including following the development of RDA since its inception. IFLA RBSC Standing Committee members attended a conference held in Edinburgh in November 2015 where the DCRM-RDA Task Force’s ongoing work was highlighted. They recognized the need to pursue a discussion with the rest of the Standing Committee about the potential of a common international standard for rare materials cataloging, regardless of format.46 Another conference held in February 2016 in Lisbon by the IFLA RBSC provided yet another forum for discussing DCRM-RDA and its advantages and disadvantages for non-Anglo-American cataloging agencies. It was also hoped that there could be discussion about developing a rare materials standard that was not siloed by format.47

Fell and Lapka state that with the adoption of RDA as an international cataloging standard, it is time to reevaluate the possibility of an international standard for rare materials cataloging. They specify that their paper will not comment on the desirability of undertaking such a project.48 A review of the history of Anglo-American rare book cataloging rules is provided. They point out that the title of the current standard, Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials qualified by “Books,” indicated that it was supposed to be the first in a series of specialized manuals for various formats. Manuals for serials, graphics, cartographic materials, and music were later published. The summarization of the history of the Anglo-American rare books cataloging standard shows how its development is intertwined with the development of the International Standard Bibliographic Description for Older Monographs (Antiquarian) (ISBD(A)). A list of nine primary requirements for an international rare materials standard is provided with an evaluation of how well a standard based on RDA might fulfill the requirements. They suggest that a common standard for rare materials cataloging could be developed as a replacement for DCRM or an extension of RDA for special collections. They note that the next version of DCRM is designed to be an extension of RDA. Lapka discusses the structure of the RBMS Policy statements developed by the DCRM Task Force to accommodate RDA and gives examples of how they will look in the RDA Toolkit in Catalogue and Index.49

Record-Creation Process

To compare bibliographic records created according to the three different standards, the author constructed separate records according to DCRM(B), the PCC-RDA-BSR, and RDA (without LC-PCC-PS) for the rare book Stirpium adversaria nova by Pierre Pena and Matthias de L’Obel, which was printed in London by Thomas Purfoot in 1571. The records included the MARC 040 $e to record the cataloging standard, MARC fields to record the rare book’s descriptive elements (245, 246, 260 or 264, 300, 500, 510, 590), and MARC fields to record authorized access points, including controlled vocabularies (100, 700, 655). The record-creation process began with assigning the appropriate content to $e of the 040 field.

040 $e Cataloging Source-Descriptive Conventions

The codes for the cataloging standards in the 040 $e are provided in the Descriptive Convention Source Codes.50 The code “dcrmb” was used for the record created using Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Books) and “rda” was used for the record created using RDA. The record constructed following the PCC-RDA-BSR included an 040 field with two $e subfields, one with “rda” and the second with “dcrmb.”51 The PCC-RDA-BSR dictates:

One of the stipulations of applying the rare materials provisions is the recording of the appropriate “dcrm” code in 040 in addition to “rda” in order to label the record as following the BSR rare materials provisions.52

The RBMS website instructs rare book catalogers using the PCC-RDA-BSR with the rare materials provisions to include these two $e subfields.53 The 040 $e fields and the sources and instructions used to construct them are summarized in table 1. The descriptive fields were constructed next, beginning with the 245 $a title proper.

245 $a Title Proper

According to DCRM(B)1A2.1, “the prescribed source of information for the title and statement of responsibility area is the title page.”54 The PCC-RDA-BSR refers to RDA 2.3.2, which addresses the title proper element. RDA 2.3.2.2 directs catalogers to “take a title proper from the preferred source of information as specified at 2.2.2 RDA-2.2.3 RDA.”55 RDA 2.2.2.2 gives the preferred source of information for “Manifestations Consisting of One or More Pages, Leaves, Sheets, or Cards (or Images of One or More Pages, Leaves, Sheets, or Cards).”56 RDA directs catalogers that the preferred source of information for a paginated book is the title page. The source of information used to construct the 245 $a title proper for Stirpium adversaria nova was the title page for all three standards (see figure 1). Table 2 summarizes the rules used from each of the standards for the records.

The rules for transcribing punctuation were reviewed before the 245 fields were created for the three records. DCRM(B)0G3.1 directs catalogers:

Do not necessarily transcribe punctuation as it appears in the source. Instead, follow modern punctuation conventions, using common sense in deciding whether to include the punctuation, omit it, replace it, or add punctuation not present.57

The PCC-RDA-BSR contains a rare materials provision for RDA 1.7.1 allowing catalogers to use DCRM(B) as the designated published style manual for transcribing punctuation. RDA 1.7.3 instructs catalogers to transcribe punctuation as it appears on the source but offers an alternative. Catalogers may omit or modify punctuation if it significantly hinders clarity. Punctuation was normalized for the transcription of the MARC fields in Stirpium adversaria nova’s three records.

The rules for transcribing the title proper in each of the standards are similar. DCRM(B)1A3 instructs: “Transcribe the title and statement of responsibility information in the form and order in which it is present in the source, unless instructed otherwise by specific rules (see 0G).”58 The PCC-RDA-BSR directs catalogers to RDA 2.3.1.4 for instructions on recording titles. The rule states: “Transcribe a title as it appears on the source of information (see 1.7 RDA).”59 This element in the PCC-RDA-BSR includes the provision: “Rare materials: Generally do not abridge titles.” This is in response to the optional omission contained in RDA 2.3.1.4:

Abridge a long title only if it can be abridged without loss of essential information. Use a mark of omission . . . to indicate such an omission. Never omit any of the first five words.60

DCRM(B)1B7.1 gives the same instructions:

Abridge a long title proper only if it can be done without loss of essential information. Do not omit any of the first five words. Indicate omissions by the mark of omission.61

The title proper of Stirpium adversaria nova is not lengthy, so the RDA or DCRM(B) rules, or the PCC-RDA-BSR rare materials provision for abridging titles, were not applied.

After the title proper was determined to be “Stirpivm adversaria nova,” transcription issues related to the use of the letter v were addressed (see figure 1). DCRM(B)1A3 directs catalogers to DCRM(B)0G for more detailed transcription guidance for topics including symbols, diacritics, and the capitalization and conversion of case of the letters I, V, i, j, u, and v. However, the guide needed for transcribing the letter v in the title proper is contained in DCRM(B)G4, the appendix that addresses the transcription of the letterforms I/J, U/V, i/j, and u/v. DCRM(B)G4.1 gives a brief overview of the history of printing as it applies to I/J, U/V, i/j, and u/v. The letter v was used in the initial position without signifying vocalic or consonantal use. Therefore, the letter v was replaced with the letter u, which was “used in the initial, medial or final position, without signifying vocalic or consonantal use” (see appendix A).

The PCC-RDA-BSR General guidelines on transcription, RDA 1.7.1, contains Alternative 1st:

Rare materials: Use Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials as the ‘designated published style manual’ in place of the instructions given under RDA 1.7.2-1.7.9 for transcribing punctuation, numerals, symbols, abbreviations, etc.63

However, since RDA 1.7.2-1.7.9 do not address the use of the letters i/j, u/v, the alternative offered by RDA1.7.1 was used for transcription guidance:

The agency creating the data may establish in-house guidelines for capitalization, punctuation, numerals, symbols, abbreviations, etc., or choose a published style manual, etc. (e.g., The Chicago Manual of Style), as its preferred guide.63

DCRM(B) with Appendix G4.1 was the chosen style manual applied to the transcription of the title proper for both the PCC-RDA-BSR record and the RDA record. The title proper for all three standards were transcribed in the same form using DCRM(B) because it was the published style manual that provided instructions for u/v. The letter v was transcribed as u in the title proper (see table 2).

245 $b Other Title Information

Other title information is a PCC Core element under the PCC-RDA-BSR but is not core in RDA. RDA 2.3.4.1 instructs catalogers to not include other title information in general. If other title information is included, it is taken from the same source as the title proper (RDA 2.3.4.2).

DCRM(B)1D1 begins by instructing catalogers to “transcribe other title information appearing on the title page in the order indicated by the sequence on, or layout of, the title page. Transcribe other title information not appearing on the title page in a note, if considered important.”64 Although the other title information on Stirpium adversaria nova’s title page is lengthy, it was transcribed in its entirety for the 245 $b element in the DCRM(B) record because it contains valuable information that describes the rare book. However, DCRM(B)1D4 may be used to abridge other title information:

Optionally, if other title information is very lengthy and can be abridged without loss of essential information, omit less important words or phrases, using the mark of omission. If considered important, transcribe omitted words or phrases in a note (including the other titles or phrases referred to in 1D2.3).65

DCRM(B)1D2.3 directs catalogs to take format statements of contents notes that are grammatically separable from the other title information and record them in a note if they are considered important.

RDA provides similar instructions for the transcription of other title information. This information is recorded according to RDA 2.3.4.3, which directs catalogers to RDA 2.3.1., the Basic Instructions on Recording Titles. RDA 2.3.1.4 states: “Transcribe a title as it appears on the source of information (see 1.7 RDA).”66 RDA 2.3.1.4 also includes instructions on abridging long titles in an optional omission: “Abridge a long title only if it can be abridged without loss of essential information. Use a mark of omission . . . to indicate such an omission. Never omit any of the first five words.”67

After deciding that the complete other title information from the title page would be recorded in the 245 $b element in each of the records, a number of transcription issues common in rare book cataloging were addressed. The first line of the other title information contains the symbol “β” in the word “acceβio.” It was transcribed as “ss” following the table provided by DCRM(B)G2 showing letterforms and symbols with their appropriate transcriptions (see http://www.loc.gov/cds/PDFdownloads/dcrm/, appendix G2). The second issue was familiar from the transcription of the title proper and the use of the letter v in a medial position in a word. “Qvibvs,” which begins the third line of the other title information on the title page (see figure 2), was transcribed as “Quibus,” according to DCRM(B)G4.1 (see appendix A). In the sixth line of other title information, “Medicinę” contains an early contraction, “ę,” that was transcribed as “[ae]” according to the table of early contractions in DCRM(B)G3 (see http://www.loc.gov/cds/PDFdownloads/dcrm/, appendix G3). Also in line 6, the ligature æ in “antiqu æ” and “nout æ” were transcribed as “ae.” DCRM(B) 0G1.1 directs that the component parts of “æ” are transcribed separately unless the language is Anglo-Saxon. DCRM(B)G3 explains that the “ ̃” over the u of “remediorũ” at the end of line 6 usually indicates a n or an m following the vowel. This contraction was transcribed as “remedioru[m].” The last transcription issue was the space between the d and the a of “Succedaneis” in line eight. It was recorded as “succedaneis,” according to DCRM(B)0G4.1, which advises:

In general, follow modern spacing conventions when transcribing from the source. Make no attempt to preserve full or irregular spaces between letters within words. If a word is divided between the end of one line and the beginning of the next, transcribe it as a single word, ignoring the line-break.68

DCRM(B) was used as the style manual following the alternative at RDA 1.7.1 for the 245 $b element transcription of the PCC-RDA-BSR and RDA records as it was for the transcription of the 245 $a title proper element. Since the transcription of the three records relied on the same style manual, DCRM(B), Stirpium adversaria nova’s other title information was transcribed in the same form in all three records shown below and in table 3:

245 10 $a Stirpium aduersaria noua : $b perfacilis vestigatio luculentaque ace[ss]io ad priscorum, presertim Dioscoridis & recentiorum, materiam medicam : quibus prope diem accedet altera pars : qua coniectaneorum de plantis appendix, de succis medicatis et metallicis sectio antiquae & nouata medicin[ae] lectiorum remedioru[m] thesaurus opulentissimus, de succedaneis libellus continentur.

DCRM(B) contains more detailed guidelines for issues that rare books catalogers encounter when transcribing other title information that the PCC-RDA-BSR and RDA lack. Other title information can contain a formal statement of the work’s contents (DCRM(B)1D2.3) and statements about illustrations or volumes (DCRM(B)1D3) requiring unique instructions. When other title information follows the statement of responsibility in subfield $c of the 245 field, it is recorded as a subsequent statement of responsibility (DCRM(B)1D2.2). The PCC-RDA-BSR and RDA lack these guidelines.

245 $c Statement of Responsibility

The last element of the 245 field, subfield $c statement of responsibility, was then constructed. The statement of responsibility for Stirpium adversaria nova is straightforward. The prescribed source of information is the title page (DCRM(B)1A2.1). The PCC-RDA-BSR directs catalogers to RDA 2.4.2 for instructions regarding the statement of responsibility relating to the title proper element. RDA 2.4.2.2 lists the sources of information for the statement of responsibility in order of preference. The first preference is Stirpium adversaria nova’s title page. All three of the standards use the same source for the statement of responsibility, which is the rare book’s title page.

Next, issues related to the transcription of the element were considered. Stirpium adversaria nova’s title page names two authors, Petro Pena and Mathia de Lobel, in a single statement of responsibility (see figure 1). The PCC-RDA-BSR contains two rare materials provisions. The first does not apply to the 245 $c element for Stirpium adversaria nova’s record. It is included in response to the core requirement of RDA 2.4.2, which states that only the first statement of responsibility is core: “Rare materials: Generally transcribe all statements of responsibility relating to title proper found in the preferred source of information.”69 The second provision addresses a common situation that rare book catalogers must address, the transposition of elements: “Rare atlases, rare books, and rare music: If a title and statement of responsibility as recorded have been transposed from their presentation in the source, see also 2.17.3”70

The single statement of responsibility with the two author names was transcribed for the DCRM(B) record as instructed by DCRM(B)1E1 (“Transcribe statements of responsibility found on the title page in the form in which they appear”)71 and DCRM(B)1E4.1 (“Transcribe a single statement of responsibility as such whether the two or more persons or corporate bodies named in it perform the same function or different functions.”)72 The directions provided for the PCC-RDA-BSR and RDA record are essentially the same as those used to create the DCRM(B) record. The PCC-RDA-BSR directs catalogers to RDA 2.4.2, which contains RDA 2.4.2.3. Catalogers are instructed to record a statement of responsibility by applying the instructions at RDA 2.4.1. RDA 2.4.1.4 directs: “Transcribe a statement of responsibility as it appears on the source of information (see 1.7 RDA).”73 The 245 $c elements in all three records were transcribed with the single statement of responsibility citing the two author names given on the title page.

Another detail of transcribing the 245 $c element addressed is that the statement of the author names on the title page is followed by “medicis” (see figure 1). “Medicis” was transcribed as it appears in the statement of responsibility on the title page according to DCRM(B)1E1: “Transcribe statements of responsibility found on the title page in the form in which they appear.”74 “Medicis” was included in the 245 $c transcription for the PCC-RDA-BSR and RDA records because RDA 2.4.1.4 directs catalogers to: “Transcribe a statement of responsibility as it appears on the source of information (see 1.7 RDA).”75 The transcriptions of the 245 $c elements for the three records were the same, “authoribus Petro Pena & Mathia de Lobel, medicis.” (see table 4).

Although the 245 $c statement of responsibility elements were the same for all three standards, DCRM(B)’s more detailed instructions for common features of rare books should be noted. These include terms of address in statements of responsibility (DCRM(B)1E7), qualifications such as initials indicating membership in societies, academic degrees, and statements of positions held (DCRM(B)1E8) and phrases about notes, appendixes, etc. (DCRM(B)1E14). The question of whether to include such terms, initials, phrases, and notes can be answered by RDA 2.4.1.4, which instructs catalogers to transcribe what appears on the source, yet the DCRM(B) provisions contain examples that illustrate the kinds of information commonly found on books produced during the hand-press era.

246 Field Variant Titles

Access points required for varying forms of the title proper were developed for the 246 field. DCRM(B)’s Appendix F provides instructions for variant title access points. The appendix’s introduction states: “Title access plays an important role in enabling users to identify and locate special collections materials.”76 Two 246 variant title fields were created to record different forms of the title proper. The first recorded “Stirpivm adversaria nova,” the form of the title as it appears on the title page, with the letter v transcribed in a medial position in the title words. Appendix F section 0G2.2 states, “Provide title access for the form of title proper that corresponds to the graphical appearance of the letters in the source.”77 The second 246 field recorded the modern form of the title, “Stirpium adversaria nova.” Appendix F section 0G7.1 provides the optional rule to make a title access point for the title proper spelled according to modern orthography.

The PCC-RDA-BSR variant title element includes the provision: “PCC Core for rare materials: record variant titles that are required by the appropriate DCRM module.”78 The same 246 variant title fields created for the DCRM(B) record were recorded in the PCC-RDA-BSR. The same 246 fields were included in the RDA record, yet recording them was not a straightforward process. RDA 2.3.6 provides instructions for creating variant titles. RDA 2.3.6.2 instructs that a variant title can be taken from any source and directs catalogers to RDA 2.3.1, the Basic Instructions on Recording Titles. RDA 2.3.1.4 states: “Transcribe a title as it appears on the source of information (see 1.7 RDA).”79 This rule cannot be easily applied to Stirpium adversaria nova’s variant forms of title proper. The modern form of the title proper, Stirpium adversaria nova, does not appear on any source. The form recorded in the 245 $a title proper, “Stirpium aduersaria noua,” does not appear on any source. The title proper was recorded with the letter v converted to the letter u in accordance with the printing conventions of the time (DCRM(B)G4.1). The alternative at RDA 1.7.1 to use another published style manual was very broadly interpreted. DCRM(B) Appendix F was applied to create the 246 variant title fields in the RDA record. All three records included 246 fields that recorded the two variant title forms described in DCRM(B) Appendix F. DCRM(B) was the standard that provided necessary instructions for recording Stirpium adversaria nova’s 246 variant title fields that the PCC-RDA-BSR and RDA could not (see table 5).

References and Notes

1. Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Books), ed. Bibliographic Standards Committee, Rare Books and Manuscripts Section, Association of College and Research Libraries, in collaboration with the Policy and Standards Office of the Library of Congress (Washington, DC: Cataloging Distribution Service, Library of Congress, 2011), accessed April 10, 2017, Section I.1, http://desktop.loc.gov/search?view=document&id=70&fq=coreresources|true.
2. Ibid.
3. Todd Fell and Francis Lapka, “ISBD and DCRM into RDA: An Opportunity for Convergence?,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 54, nos. 5–6 (2016): 284.
4. Catalogers Desktop DCRM(B) Preface, accessed April 19, 2017, http://desktop.loc.gov/search?view=document&id=Infobasedcrmb0Dash0Dash0Dash3&fq=coreresources|true.
5. Joint Steering Committee for the Development of RDA, RDA: Resource Description and Access, Frequently Asked Questions, accessed February 10, 2018, www.rda-jsc.org/archivedsite/rdafaq.html#12.
6. Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA, RDA: Resource Description and Access, accessed April 14, 2017, www.rda-jsc.org/archivedsite/rda.html.
7. PCC RDA BIBCO Standard Record (BSR) Meta Application Profile: January 13, 2016 Revision (Washington, DC: Program for Cooperative Cataloging, 2016), 3.
8. Ibid.
9. Bibliographic Standards Committee, Rare Books and Manuscripts Section, Association of College and Research Libraries, American Library Association: BSC Committee Website Conference Documents: Minutes and Agendas, accessed February 10, 2018, http://rbms.info/committees/minutes/#custom-collapse-0-bibliographic-standards-committee.
10. RBMS Manual/Organization/Standing Committees, accessed April 14, 2017, http://rbms.info/rbms_manual/standing_committees/#bibliographic_standards.
11. DCRM-L—DCRM Users’ Group, accessed April 14, 2017, https://listserver.lib.byu.edu/mailman/listinfo/dcrm-l.
12. CC:DA/TF/Early Printed Monographs/4, July 24, 2004, Final Report of Task Force, 1, accessed April 14, 2017, http://downloads.alcts.ala.org/ccda/docs/tf-epm2.pdf.
13. Joint ALCTS/ACRL Task Force on Cataloging Rules for Early Printed Monographs (AACR2 2.12-18), accessed April 14, 2017, http://downloads.alcts.ala.org/ccda/tf-epm1.html#charge.
14. “Reconsidering DCRM in the Light of RDA: A Discussion Paper,” accessed April 14, 2017, http://rbms.info/files/committees/bibliographic_standards/committee-docs/DCRM_RDA-DP-20101214.pdf.
15. Rare Books and Manuscripts Section, BSC meeting minutes, ALA Midwinter 2011, accessed April 14, 2017, http://rbms.info/files/committees/minutes/2011/bibstandminutes11m.pdf.
16. Rare Books and Manuscripts Section, BSC meeting minutes, ALA Midwinter 2012, accessed April 14, 2017, http://rbms.info/files/committees/minutes/2012/bibstandminutes12m.pdf.
17. Bibliographic Standards Committee DCRMRDA Task Force, Final Report, October 10, 2012, accessed April 15, 2017, http://rbms.info/files/dcrm/rda/FinalDCRMRDAReport_20121010.pdf.
18. Rare Books and Manuscripts Section, BSC meeting minutes, ALA Annual Conference 2012, Appendix C, accessed April 15, 2017, http://rbms.info/files/committees/minutes/2012/bibstandminutes12a.pdf.
19. Rare Books and Manuscripts Section, BSC meeting minutes, ALA Midwinter 2012.
20. Cory L. Nimer and J. Gordon Daines III, “The Development and Application of U.S. Descriptive Standards for Archives, Historical Manuscripts, and Rare Books,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 51, no. 5 (2013): 536.
21. Rare Books and Manuscripts Section, BSC meeting minutes, ALA Midwinter 2013, accessed April 15, 2017, http://rbms.info/files/committees/minutes/2013/bibstandminutes13m.pdf.
22. Rare Books and Manuscripts Section, BSC meeting minutes, ALA Midwinter 2013.
23. ACRL/RBMS Descriptive Cataloging for Rare Materials Task Force 2015, accessed April 15, 2017, www.ala.org/acrl/rbms/acr-rbmdctf?year=2015.
24. ACRL/RBMS Descriptive Cataloging for Rare Materials Task Force 2016, accessed April 15, 2017, www.ala.org/acrl/rbms/acr-rbmdctf?year=2016.
25. Rare Books and Manuscripts Section, BSC meeting minutes, ALA Midwinter 2015, accessed April 15, 2017), http://rbms.info/files/committees/minutes/2015/bibstandminutes15m.pdf; Rare Books and Manuscripts Section, BSC Annual 2016 Meeting Minutes, accessed April 16, 2017, http://rbms.info/files/committees/minutes/2016/bibstandminutes16a.pdf.
26. Rare Books and Manuscripts Section, BSC meeting minutes, ALA Annual 2014, accessed April 15, 2017, http://rbms.info/files/committees/minutes/2014/bibstandminutes14a.pdf; Rare Books and Manuscripts Section, BSC meeting minutes, ALA Midwinter 2014, accessed April 15, 2017, http://rbms.info/files/committees/minutes/2014/bibstandminutes14m.pdf.
27. Ibid.
28. Rare Books and Manuscripts Section, BSC meeting minutes, ALA Annual 2015, accessed April 15, 2017, http://rbms.info/files/committees/minutes/2015/bibstandminutes15a.pdf.
29. Gordon Dunsire, Memo to the RDA Steering Committee, RSC Subject: Terms of Reference for the RSC Rare Materials Working Group, January 28, 2016, accessed April 16, 2017, www.rda-rsc.org/sites/all/files/RSC-Chair-4.pdf.
30. Ibid.
31. Rare Books and Manuscripts Section, BSC meeting minutes, ALA Midwinter 2016, accessed April 16, 2017, http://rbms.info/files/committees/minutes/2016/bibstandminutes16m.pdf.
32. Robert L. Maxwell and John Attig, “Rare Materials and RDA: Exploring the Issues,” (ALCTS webinar, May 23, 2012), accessed April 16, 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD03Z_SRIok.
33. Nimer and Daines, “The Development and Application of U.S. Descriptive Standards,” 535.
34. Mary W. Elings and Randal S. Brandt, “The FUTURES of Technical Services,” Journal of Rare Books, Manuscripts & Cultural Heritage 14, no. 1 (2013): 23–24.
35. Ibid., 26.
36. Rare Books and Manuscripts Section, BSC meeting minutes, ALA Midwinter 2012 .
37. Nimer and Daines, “The Development and Application of U.S. Descriptive Standards,” 532–49.
38. Alasdair MacDonald and Elizabeth Quarmby Lawrence, “RDA and Rare Books Cataloguing at the University of Edinburgh,” Catalogue & Index: Periodical of the Library Association Cataloguing & Indexing Group, no. 183 (2016): 10–14.
39. Ibid., 10.
40. Peter Sjökvist, “Transcription in Rare Books Cataloging,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 54, no. 5-6 (2016): 5–6.
41. Brandon High, “Rare Book Cataloguing: A Very Short Introduction,” Catalogue & Index: Periodical of the Library Association Cataloguing & Indexing Group, no. 179 (2015): 2.
42. Rare Books and Manuscripts Section, BSC meeting minutes, ALA Annual 2016, accessed April 18, 2017, http://rbms.info/files/committees/minutes/2016/bibstandminutes16a.pdf.
43. Isabel García-Monge and Daryl Green, “Introduction,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 54, no. 5-6 (2016): 280.
44. Nimer and Daines, “The Development and Application of U.S. Descriptive Standards,” 547.
45. García-Monge and Green, “Introduction.”
46. García-Monge and Green, “Introduction,” 278.
47. Ibid.
48. Todd Fell and Francis Lapka, “ISBD and DCRM into RDA,” 282.
49. Francis Lapka and Audrey Pearson, “RDA and Desciptive Cataloging of Rare Materials: Developing Policy Statements for Special Collections Resources,” Catalogue & Index, no. 183 (2016).
50. Library of Congress, Network Development and MARC Standards Office, Descriptive Convention Source Codes, accessed March 13, 2017, www.loc.gov/standards/sourcelist/descriptive-conventions.html.
51. Rare Books and Manuscripts Section, Association of College and Research Libraries, American Library Association, “DCRM and RDA: BSC Statement on DCRM and RDA,” accessed March 3, 2017, http://rbms.info/dcrm/rda/.
52. PCC RDA BIBCO Standard Record (BSR) Meta Application Profile: September 6, 2017 Revision (Washington, DC: Program for Cooperative Cataloging, 2017), 5, 36, accessed March 3, 2017, www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/bibco/documents/PCC-RDA-BSR.pdf.
53. Rare Books and Manuscripts Section, Association of College and Research Libraries, American Library Association, “DCRM and RDA: BSC Statement on DCRM and RDA.”
54. Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Books), accessed December 19, 2016.
55. American Library Association, RDA Toolkit: Resource Description and Access, accessed March 13, 2017, https://access.rdatoolkit.org.
56. Ibid.
57. Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Books), accessed April 22, 2017.
58. Ibid.
59. American Library Association, RDA Toolkit, accessed March 13, 2017.
60. Ibid.
61. Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Books), accessed March 13, 2017.
62. PCC RDA BIBCO Standard Record (BSR) Meta Application Profile: September 6, 2017 Revision, 6.
63. RDA Toolkit, accessed March 14, 2017.
64. Ibid.
65. Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Books), accessed December 12, 2016.
66. RDA Toolkit, accessed December 12, 2016.
67. Ibid., accessed March 16, 2017.
68. Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Books), accessed December 12, 2016.
69. PCC RDA BIBCO Standard Record (BSR) Meta Application Profile: September 6, 2017 Revision, 7.
70. Ibid.
71. Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Books), October 30, 2017.
72. Ibid.
73. RDA Toolkit, accessed March 16, 2017.
74. Ibid.
75. Ibid.
76. Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Books), accessed March 17, 2017.
77. Ibid., accessed October 30, 2017.
78. PCC RDA BIBCO Standard Record (BSR) Meta Application Profile: September 6, 2017 Revision, 7.
79. RDA Toolkit, accessed March 17, 2017.

Appendix A. Letterforms I/J, U/V, i/j, and u/v. Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Books)