Summary of Virtual Meeting, August 4, 2011

Present: Erin Blake, James Eason, Marcy Flynn, Mary Mundy, Lenore Rouse

1. Should artists' series be in scope for the Series area?

• Discussion included the following:
• Mary's discussion document: Area6-artist series.doc
• AACR2 definition of series: 1. A group of separate items related to one another by the fact that each item bears, in addition to its own title proper, a collective title applying to the group as a whole. The individual items may or may not be numbered.  2. Each of two or more volumes of essays, lectures, articles, or other writings, similar in character and issued in sequence (e.g., Lowell’s Among my books, second series).  3. A separately numbered sequence of volumes within a series or serial (e.g., Notes and queries, 1st series, 2nd series, etc.).
• current DCRM(G) glossary definition of series (taken directly from Graphic Materials): The term "series" has different connotations in libraries (publisher's series), museums (artist's series), and archives (series in a record group). One cannot avoid using the term, however, when trying to convey the relatedness of a group of graphic items. For the purpose of these rules, the term generally connotes a group of items related to each other by the fact that each (or most of the items) bears, in addition to its own title proper, a collective title (i.e., series title) applying to the group as a whole. The individual items may or may not be numbered. Because of the circumstances under which a repository acquires original and historical graphic materials, it is quite possible that it might not have all of the items comprising a particular series or, indeed, even know what would constitute a complete series.
• Concluded that "on or with the material" is key to series in bibliographic description, so an artist's series bearing a series title would belong in Area 6, but one that has simply come to be known by a series name would not. Shortened 6A0. by removing the exclusion for artist's series:

Do not use this area for groups that have come to be known as series but do not bear a series title. Such information may be mentioned in a note. Provide additional title access, if considered important.

• Realized that 6A0. allowed for supplied or devised titles for individual items but the glossary definition of "series" did not. Amended the glossary definition to match the scope.

2. Should we allow catalogers to follow DCRM(B) and DCRM(S) instructions for i, j, u, v transcription when converting case?

• background: per discussion with Cartographic editors at BSC meeting: reconsider G's current position of going directly to the conversion table for i, j, u, v transcription when converting case. Argument: there are times following the pattern of usage will differ from the chart, and there are institutions where that really does matter, and the instructions in the original Appendix G give an "out" -- they say "If the pattern of usage cannot be determined within a reasonable amount of time, use this conversion table as a solution of last resort." (emphasis added) In other words, it should be up to local policy to determine what's a reasonable amount of time, if any. (Also: note that the i, j, u, v, section has been re-worded somewhat for clarity and accuracy, as approved by BSC at Annual 2011)
• eventually concluded that although we wish we could do quasi-facsimile transcription and avoid the issue completely, and liked the simplicity of going straight to the chart of last resort, we didn't have a graphic materials reason to differ, and it really does matter to some institutions; those institutions shouldn't be forced to use the chart if it differs from the pattern of usage in the text, and other institutions can decide that "a reasonable amount of time" for their purposes is two seconds.
• considered referring people to B for instructions, if it matters to them, but decided the instructions should be self-contained, since there's no graphic materials reason to differ
• when re-introducing the instruction to determine the pattern of usage, will point clearly to Appendix G4 and mention "reasonable amount of time" rather than burying it in a footnote.

3. In-analytics

• see Lenore's discussion paper: Issues related to analytics.pdf
• agreed that we always want a 260, even if it repeats what's in the 773: don't want to bury that information with the title of the book, want to keep it in a predictable place for mapping purposes
• much discussion of whether or not to bracket the 260 if the information comes from the title page or colophon of the book that contains the illustration rather than from the illustration itself
• eventually agreed to bracket because title page and colophon were judged not to be "provided by the creator or creating body ... with the material" in the same sense as photographer's caption list, portfolio cover, etc., where the information clearly goes with the illustration, not the host item (compare with the decision on not bracketing a title from a list of plates, see below)
• much discussion of how much of the title page or colophon imprint to provide in square brackets, and whether it should be transcribed from the source or given in English when different. For example:
• "[Monachii [Munich]]" or just "[Munich]" or just "[Monachii]"?
• "[In the Flete Strete in the sygne of the Sonne by Wynkyn de Worde]" or just "[Wynkyn de Worde]"
• "[Winandu[m] de Worde]" or "[Wynkyn de Worde]"?
• "[In Knoblochs Druckerey]" or "[Johann Knobloch]"
• issues include:
• DCRM emphasizes transcription, but bracketed information need not be transcribed, and the same information could be (though needn't be) transcribed in the 773
• information repeated from the 773 is provided as a convenience, so no need to go overboard
• did not reach a conclusion
• much discussion of whether a title taken from a list of plates for an illustration that itself bears no title is "provided by the creator or creating body ... with the material" (and therefore should not be bracketed)
• eventually decided that such titles should not be bracketed, and added "lists of plates in books" to examples of possible chief sources in 0C.
• issues included:
• the list of plates isn't necessarily (or even usually) provided by the artist or printmaker, but rather by the author or publisher: decided that it's still a transcribable title, intended to go with the illustration
• if you have just the print (as opposed to doing an in-analytic for that plate in a book) and you're looking for copy in OCLC, you'll be looking for a bracketed title: decided if you've got nothing to go on, you won't find it anyway, so no reason to deviate from the previous point 
• there might be a different title on the plate itself: decided the title on the plate itself would be the 245, with a 246 for the title from the list of plates
• the same state of the same print could have different titles in different books: decided not to worry about it, just describe what you've got (and if you know it was also given another title, you can say so in the record and provide additional title access)

4. Deliberately untitled works of art

• realized we've made no provision for Graphic Materials 1997 update: "Optionally, use "[Untitled]" rather than devise a descriptive title for uncaptioned or otherwise untitled single images. If appropriate for further identification, include a brief description of the item in a note."
• decided to add this provision because there are fine art situations where the artist's intention was that the work remain untitled; we'd want to make it clear this is not appropriate for works that just happen not to bear a title
• question not discussed (because it just occurred to Erin while writing these notes): does this fall under "Title supplied from another source" where that other source is the artist or a catalogue raisonne (in which case it can simply be given as an example)? Or does it fall under the "For untitled works where the interest is in the aesthetic value of the material" within "Cataloger-devised title"?