Summary of Virtual Meeting, September 30, 2011

Present: Erin Blake, Ellen Cordes, James Eason, Mary Mundy, Lenore Rouse

Area 5: Physical Description

We reviewed the revisions to Area 5 sent to the DCRM-L list yesterday, and came up with a new version during the meeting that Erin will clean up and continue for further discussion (notably, measuring multipart resources of different sizes, with or without original containers). Here's a summary of what we came up with:

• changed multipart resource examples (including deleting some) to make them consistent with likely multipart resources (previously, they were meant to be examples of collections, with large numbers and/or great variety of items)
• deleted the two instances of "SMD" in favor of spelling out "specific material designation" because (unlike GMD) the abbreviation SMD isn't commonly used in general cataloging, and was barely used in this document; the inconsistency of using one abbreviation but not the other was deemed less important than the problem of using an obscure abbreviation
• removed the option of making multiple 300s for multipart resources containing more than one type of material: it made sense for collections (and is in Appendix B) but didn't for multipart resources, where the unity of the resource is key
• new heading for 5B4, "Special additions to the statement of extent and the specific material designation" (derived from GM heading for same idea)
• revised because only applies to some whole-part relationships, e.g. doesn't apply to multipart resources that were not issued in an original container, such as a set of four prints of The seasons.
• question from EB while writing this up: with the new heading, should we bump 5B5 up to be 5B4.4? This is the instruction for recording file size of digital images in parentheses following the SMD, e.g. "1 photograph (201 KB)" and "10 photographs (400 MB) on 1 CD-ROM." It's another instance of a special addition to the 300$a.
• noticed that it's not clear whether the general instruction in 5C to "record additional physical characteristics of material as appropriate to the materials, local policy, and cataloger’s expertise" means the field is mandatory or optional, but didn't reach a conclusion
• its implicitly optional by example because some of the examples under "dimensions" omit this element
• we agreed the element could definitely be omitted in minimal level cataloging
• question from EB while writing this up: how about encouraging at least a best-guess, the way we do for place, and the way we mandate for date, e.g. "1 print : woodcut?" or "1 print : engraving? possibly with etching?" -- it's already clear from the examples that "1 photograph : print" is okay, you don't have to guess at a process.
• after much discussion, changed 5C1 to say that the "additional physical characteristics element" may include "form, medium, presentation, primary and secondary supports, and color" -- had originally said "method of production" instead of "form, medium" but needed to be a word that would make it clear it's okay (and expected) to use the plural when appropriate for multipart resources. In GM, the singular was always used because it was intended be the type of technique rather than product, but the same word is often used for both so it's confusing:
• GM style: 5 prints : lithograph
• DCRM(G) style: 5 prints : lithographs
• neither: 5 prints : lithographic
• neither: 5 prints : lithography
• added Stereographs as a specific heading, since it trips people up to count one piece of cardboard with two separately-mounted photographic prints as "1 photograph" and the instruction for (stereograph format) doesn't come until 5D3.4
• tightened the wording of 5C6, additional physical characteristics for multiple techniques or processes 
• identified the need to be clear that hand coloring in the 300 is only for color applied before distribution; later hand color needs to be a local note; need an "in case of doubt" default
• agreed in principle that giving measurements more precise than rounding up to the nearest cm should be done in mm rather than tenths of centimeters, since that's standard in fine art and less cluttered than decimal points; also makes a clearer separation between things that are rounded up in the traditional library way and things that are not rounded up, i.e. 25 cm vs. 250 mm is preferable to 25 cm vs. 25.0 cm because decimal-zero is unexpected.
• agreed the goal of "record dimensions larger than 2 meters in the shortest dimension to the nearest meter" was to allow approximations, and that it was confusing to round up or down to the nearest whole unit when the general (and long-standing) rule is always to round up, and the main option is to be exact. Will reword to allow measurements expressed as "ca." or "approximately" 
• agreed that it's too cumbersome to require always adding sheet size when it's already required to provide a measurement that doesn't vary from copy to copy (e.g. plate mark of intaglio prints, pictorial area for planographic and relief prints), and that it's inconsistent to mandate copy-specific information in the body of the description (it's rare for early prints to survive on uncut sheets); the option to record sheet size remains, "Optionally, add other dimensions that help to describe the item"