1
Meeting Notes
RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee Manuscripts Working Group
ALA Annual Meeting, Chicago
July 1-2, 2013
Present: Alison Bridger (Wisconsin Historical Society), Diane Ducharme (Yale University), Kate
Moriarty (virtually; Saint Louis University), Jennifer Nelson (virtually; Robbins Collection, Law
Library, UC Berkeley), Margaret Nichols (Cornell University, chair), Elizabeth O’Keefe (The
Morgan Library), Heather Wolfe (Folger Shakespeare Library), Jennifer Dunlap (Newberry
Library), and Matthew Haugen (Columbia University).
Overview: We worked on our square brackets statement and discussed the use of Area 2.
We also reviewed and made changes to the Introduction and Areas 0, 1, 5, and 7. These notes
reflect the highlights of the meeting’s discussion on those areas. For the updated text, see the
link, DCRM(MSS) in the “2013 September” section of the wiki homepage. The numbering below
is from that document.
Bibliographic Standards Committee Update
We started by updating group members on the DCRM(MSS)-related discussion that took place
at the June 29, 2013 Bibliographic Standards Committee meeting.
 A consolidated RDA DCRM document is planned and it was recognized that Manuscripts
will be an outlier.
 Our public hearing will be at Midwinter 2014 in Philadelphia. We’ll ask for Saturday night.
 Appendix C will be repurposed for capitalization.
 BSC reiterated that we should use Area 2, even if it’s very short. BSC recognizes the
difference between an edition and an edition statement but stated that the information still
needs to be transcribed in the edition area. For example, a manuscript copy of a 2nd-edition
book: BSC recognizes that the manuscript is not an edition but would like the information
recorded in the edition area.
 Margaret reported to BSC that we are preparing a written response regarding the issue of
square brackets.
Square Bracket Response
 We continued work on our statement, using the most recent revision of Liz’s draft.
 Thoughts that arose during the discussion:
o We are bridging two different professions.
o Square brackets would be going against the national standards that have existed for
years. Archivists will reject our standard completely if we require their use.
o In the SAA workshop, Applying DACS to Single-Item Manuscript Cataloging,
square brackets are not used.
o This is not a transcription standard.
o For object cataloging, as in Cataloging Cultural Objects, there is no field that is
transcribed. Transcription is unimportant.
2
o
o
o
o
Records for cultural objects and manuscripts have been in catalogs for years.
We identified many institutions that do not use square brackets in manuscript
records, such as The Folger, UNC, Berkeley, and Harvard.
Applying our square bracket policy to unpublished material in every DCRM module
would be a principled disparity.
Can we make the issue clearer in the rules? Some rules that relate to the issue:
 II.1. [Relationship to other standards] DCRM(B), DACS, AMREMM,
APPM, and other cataloging documentation: we state that DCRM(MSS) is
closer to DACS than DCRM(B) in its reliance on cataloger-supplied
information rather than transcription.
 III.2.1. Rules provide guidelines on constructing an accurate description of
a manuscript.
 III.2.2. Rules provide guidance for describing a manuscript as a unique
artifact
 0G. Transcription: we identify the transcription elements.
 1B1. [Devised title] General rule: we say to make a note that the title is
devised, if considered important.
 1C1.1. [Formal title] Sources of information: we say to make a note on the
source of the formal title, if considered important. We can’t require this note
because it could lead to repetition in a finding aid.
Edition Area Discussion
 We drafted two versions of Area 2 instructions, adapted from our 7B10.6 Bibliographic
signatures:
o “For manuscripts that contain edition statements appearing on a formal title page,
transcribe the edition statement according to DCRM(B) Area 2. Record all other
types of edition or version information in a note (7B7), if considered important.”
o Or: “This area is not generally used for manuscripts. For manuscripts that meet the
definition of “edition” (see Glossary) in the bibliographic sense, and that contain an
edition statement appearing on a formal title page, transcribe the edition statement
according to DCRM(B) Area 2. Record all other types of edition or version
information in a note (7B7), if considered important.”
 Issues that often arise when discussing Area 2:
o Family newsletters in multiple copies
o A manuscript copy of a printed book
General Editorial Changes
 We changed all instances of “record(s)” (as in catalog records) to “description(s)” to apply to
both cataloging and the creation of finding aids.
Introduction
 Do we need to explicitly state that this module bridges to a community outside the library
profession?
3

IX.1.3. Encoding level: we added our required elements for a minimal-level description:
title, date, extent.
Area 0
 0B1. Required elements: After some discussion, we confirmed that title, date, and extent are
the required elements.
 0F. Language, writing system, and conventions of the description: We added a footnote
following “writing system”: “DCRM(MSS) uses “writing system” where other modules use
“script.” In the context of manuscripts, the “script” of a manuscript refers to the
handwriting style, such as bastard secretary or Gothic cursive.”
 0G. Transcription: We added a footnote to the end of the first paragraph: “Note that
transcription in the DCRM modules is not the same as semi-diplomatic transcription, which
is the usual standard for scholarly editing of manuscripts.”
 We cleaned up Area 0 and reviewed it for examples we still need to provide.
Area 1
 We reviewed Kate’s edits of the final rules in Area 1 and accepted the changes.
Area 5
 5B2.1. Leaves, pages, etc.: At the end of the 3rd paragraph, refer to 7B10.5 once that rule is
written.
Area 7
 7B10.5: We have a placeholder at 7B10.5 but need to finish writing the rule on recording
anomalies in foliation or pagination.
Examples
 From the June 29 DCRM(C) public hearing: DCRM editors should not make up examples.
We shouldn’t kill ourselves looking for examples; we can use examples from another
module as a last resort.
Glossary
 From the June 29 DCRM(C) public hearing: when terms overlap with those in other
modules, use the same definition. Do not include glossary terms that are in AACR2 unless
we use the terms in a different way.
Assignments / To Do between Now and the Public Hearing
 See “Assignments following July 2013 meeting” on the Assignments page of the wiki
http://mssworkinggroup.pbworks.com/w/page/21898463/Assignments
 Additional items:
 Search the document for your name for things you’ve volunteered to provide.
 Everyone review “Examples to accompany edition notes” parked at the beginning of
Area 7.
4





Format the lists in rules IX.2.2, IX2.3, and IX2.4 to bulleted lists as in DCRM(B).
Format the new footnote at 0F following “writing system”: “DCRM(MSS) uses “writing
system” where other modules use “script.” In the context of manuscripts, the “script” of
a manuscript refers to the handwriting style, such as bastard secretary or Gothic
cursive.”
Write rule 7B10.5 on recording anomalies in foliation or pagination.
Add a reference from 5B2.1 to 7B10.5 once 7B10.5 is written.
Appendixes: do Appendix F by the hearing.
Respectfully submitted by Kate Moriarty September 10, 2013