Summary of virtual meeting, July 21, 2011

Present: Erin Blake, James Eason (for the first part only), Mary Mundy, Lenore Rouse

Series area

Discussed Helena's comment that "Do not use this area ... when a publisher has used the term [series] as a marketing or branding tool (e.g., The Rotograph Series)" is problematic. Agreed to delete the reference to marketing or branding tools: when you don't have a title page to go on, it's too hard to decide what is and isn't a series title, and besides, series titles no longer have to be established. If the cataloging agency thinks it's useful to record that information prominently, this is where it goes.

Decided not to mention the exclusion of archival record series or collections, since it's already clear from the scope and the glossary that these aren't meant here.

Did not exclude titles of multipart resources because they can be dealt with here, see 1B6: "If creating separate records for individual items, apply the appropriate rule (1B8 or area 6, see [precataloging decisions])." BUT... maybe that's a misunderstanding?

Wondered if artist's series really should be excluded (example: what Jacob Lawrence called "The Migration Series" -- though those are paintings, not a series of prints). Mary will follow up.

Devised titles for inaccurate, insufficient, or illegible text

Decided that inaccurate titles are already covered by the existing rules on inaccuracies: you'd transcribe the inaccurate title then supply a correction in square brackets with "i.e."

• problem: our provisional acceptance of RDA's instruction on not using "sic" or "i.e." means that we'd end up with a completely wrong title as the title proper. This is a rare materials reason to deviate from RDA: Erin will ask BSC if this can be brought to DCRM-L for discussion.

Decided it could be appropriate to devise a title if the text is "insufficient by being too minimal or generic" (with examples of what's too minimal) but recognize that it's a matter of judgment. 

Decided this doesn't contradict "1B5.2. If the transcribed text does not adequately describe the nature and content of the item, supply additional information in the note area" because that's not the same thing as too minimal or generic.

Re-titled 1F2 from "Title devised by cataloger" to "Cataloger-devised title for untitled material" so that it could be matched by the new 1F3. "Cataloger-devised title for insufficient or indecipherable text"

See changes in DCRMGv7_3_20110721 at:

• 1B5.2 (added Krazy Kat example)
• 1F3 (entirely new text: note that "7th N.Y." was formerly an example of a title that WOULD be transcribed as title proper, with additional title access to the descriptive title)
• Appendix F 1B5.2: replaced "7th N.Y." example with Krazy Kat
• Appendix F 1F3: created new example, reversing our previous stance on "7th N.Y."

In analytics

Discussed the need to provide instructions on how to catalog illustrations in books, and whether they should be further incorporated into the main text (like 7B8.2. Material in or from a larger publication) or be an appendix.

Known issue: we say that "The chief source of information is text provided by the creator or creating body on or with the material" which would include title information taken from a list of illustrations (when the book illustration itself bears no title) or the publisher and date from the title page of a book in which the illustration appears) but this doesn't always feel right. Consider, for example, a print that is both separately-published and sold as a single sheet but also later sold bound into a published book where the publication date on the print is unchanged. Unless the paper is distinct, there can be no way to know if a loose example was published in the year on the print or the year on the title page of the book.

Erin was dead-set against another appendix, despite Mary and Lenore's reasoning, saying that adding another section to Area 4 might take care of it. Afterwards, she regretted this and sent an apologetic e-mail proposing an appendix after all, one that would provide "additional guidance" and hoping Lenore would still be able to draft something.