Appendix D. Minimal-Level Records

Appendix D. Minimal-Level Records

The elements of description provided in DCRM(M) constitute a full set of information for describing rare materials. This appendix sets out a less than full level of description containing those elements recommended as a minimum for effective description of early and/or other rare materials.

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. These guidelines are provided in response to such needs. Their purpose is not to promote the use of DCRM(M) minimal-level cataloging, but rather to provide a usable standard for those institutions wishing to adopt effective procedures for less-than-full cataloging.

D2. Application

Catalogers may apply the minimal-level standard to any rare materials described using DCRM(M). DCRM(M) minimal-level records are especially appropriate when faithful and accurate descriptions are desirable, the provision of subject and other access points is not necessarily important, and abridged transcriptions and fewer notes are acceptable.

A minimal-level cataloging policy is best kept simple. Complex rules for omitting or shortening a variety of record elements would require catalogers to devote time to learning these new rules, thereby eliminating a portion of the intended gains in time and expense. In addition, tampering with the full description provided by DCRM(M) areas 0-6 and 8 would negate the very purpose of using DCRM(M) for description of rare music materials. The conclusion then is that eliminating notes accomplishes much of the purpose of minimal-level cataloging because it saves considerable time while not unduly limiting access. Bibliographic records following this approach will, in most cases, still identify the resources being described and distinguish them from similar editions or issues.

D3. Elements of the bibliographic record

D3.1. Follow the rules in DCRM(M) areas 0-6 and 8. Abridge the description wherever possible as allowed by the rules. It is not necessary to make the notes usually considered required.

D3.2. Optionally, addsupply any additional elements in accordance with institutional policy. In particular, consider adding one or more of the following, each of which can significantly enhance the value of minimal-level DCRM(M) records for identifying rare materials:

references to published descriptions in standard bibliographies (rule 7B16), particularly when the source cited provides more detailed information than the minimal-level bibliographic record

the required notes called for in DCRM(M) (a complete list of required notes may be found in the index under ‘Required notes’)

one or more local notes describing provenance, copy numbering, imperfections, binding, or any other information that will allow the bibliographic record to describe the particular copy in hand with sufficient precision to indicate the institution’s ownership of that particular copy

optional notes based on reliable dealers’ descriptions accompanying the item being described

D3.3. Minimal-level cataloging policies often eliminate or simplify additional areas of the bibliographic record such as subject headings, classification, or other access points. This appendix does not address such questions because they are out of scope for DCRM(M); however,, but users of DCRM(M) may also wish to streamline these areas according to local needs, taking into consideration the effect that such policies will have on special files for printers, binders, bindings, genre/forms, provenance, and the like.

Appendix E. Variations Requiring a New Record

change in content (e.g., changes in the title, statement of responsibility, or edition statement that indicate corrections, revisions, expansions, abridgments, or the inclusion of supplementary materials)

different setting of type (e.g., changes in the statement of extent, a change in bibliographical format, or differences in music line-endings and catchwords revealed by the comparison of multiple copies)

change in publication status (e.g., an original title page has been cancelled and replaced; an original publication, distribution, production, etc., statement has been covered with a new label; original sheets have been issued in a new publisher’s cover bearing more recent datainformation than that provided on the title page, or with a new series title page)

change in plate and/or publisher numbers

E1.3. In general, do not consider differences relating solely to substantially unchanged impressions, states, binding variants, or copies as an indication that a new record is required. Examples of differences that do not in themselves necessarily signal the need for a new record in the absence of other differences include:

a difference in a statement of printing (e.g., fifth printing)

a difference in the printer or other manufacturer if the publisher has not changed

a difference in the printing or copyright date if the publication date has not changed

a difference in the publisher’s cover that does not provide evidence of a discrete publishing unit (e.g., a change of color in publisher’s cloth)

a difference relating to inserted publisher’s advertisements and catalogs (unless they are integral to the publication)

stop-press corrections

the presence or absence of an errata slip

the addition, deletion, or change of an ISMN

E1.4. These basic default guidelines result in a single bibliographic record being used to represent multiple impressions, states, and binding variants relating to a single edition or issue. This record may include, in local notes, information that does not apply to all copies of the edition or issue, whether the information applies to an impression, a state, a binding variant or an individual item.

E2. Alternative guidelines

E2.1. The default approach presented above is not prescriptive and indeed may not be desirable in every situation. Institutions may sometimes want to create separate records for different impressions or for other bibliographic variants. Some may want to create separate records for each individual copy.

E2.2. Numerous factors will influence the decision of when to create separate bibliographic records for variants, including:

the comprehensiveness of an institution’s collections

the perceived needs of the users of these collections

whether and how the publication has been described in a standard bibliography

whether the publication can be compared to other copies

the desire for consistency with other records in the institution’s catalog

the quality of the records available for use in copy cataloging

the structure of any shared database to which an institution contributes its records

the nature of an institution’s policies, priorities, and staffing levels

E2.3. Within the rules, alternatives are provided that allow a cataloger to create separate records for individual impressions, states, binding variants, or copies (see rules 2B3.2, 2B4.2, 2D2, 4G). The cataloger must be consistent in applying these alternative rules to all areas of the description once the decision has been made to apply them.