1
Meeting Notes
RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee Manuscripts Working Group
Folger Shakespeare Library Meeting
December 2-4, 2012
Present: Diane Ducharme (Yale University), Kate Moriarty (Saint Louis University),
Jennifer Nelson (Robbins Collection, Law Library, UC Berkeley), Margaret Nichols
(Cornell University, chair), Elizabeth O’Keefe (The Morgan Library), Heather Wolfe
(Folger Shakespeare Library)
We finished work on the Introduction and started Area 0, working through 0G3. These
notes reflect the highlights of the meeting’s discussion. For the updated text, see the
link, “DCRM(MSS) (Intro & Areas 1, 4, 5, 7)” in the 2012 section on the wiki. The
numbering below is taken from that document with some numbering changes from the
October 2012 version (link name: DCRM(MSS) Introduction: ALA Annual 2012
revision).
Introduction
I. Scope and purpose
 I.2. DCRM(MSS):
o We will show the language of this rule (what is out of scope, when to use
other modules) to DCRM(C), DCRM(S), and DCRM(M) editors to see if they
agree.
o We will also confirm with DCRM(S) editors that they are developing an
appendix for manuscript serials. If so, we will state that manuscript serials are
out of scope.
 I.3. Need for special rules: We have 2-3 audiences. This section should answer,
Why can’t I catalog this as a book? Why can’t I use DACS? Why can’t I use
AMREMM?
II. Relationship to other standards
 II.1: Check DCRM(G) for their wording on using RDA and the LC-PCC PS’s for
access points. Check against the beginning of our 2nd paragraph.
III. Objectives and principles
 We confirmed our June 2012 decision to make this section specific to DCRM(MSS)
and not DCRM in general since we differ so much from other modules. We also
agreed again to omit mention of Svenonius.
 Our paragraph on DACS explains that we are influenced by DACS but it is not
adequate to describe individual manuscripts, hence the need for DCRM(MSS).
 III.1. Functional objectives
o III.1.1. Discern it is a manuscript: We made the ability to discern that the item
is a manuscript the first objective and included FRBR language.
o III.1.2. Identification & selection tasks: We used some language from APPM.
o III.1.4. Investigate physical processes: “Provenance” or “former owner”?
Provenance can mean custodial history in the archival world.
2

III.2. Principles
o III.2.1. Accurate description: What appears on manuscripts is not
authoritative, as with a title page on a published item. Information on the
manuscript may be inaccurate, incomplete, etc. Thus, accurate description
must be devised not transcribed.
o (III.2.2.) Rules provide guidance for standardization and normalization of
dates and place names: We are getting rid of this principle and including the
concepts in other principles and rules.
o III.2.2. Describing unique artifact: We added a sentence on a lesser need for
transcription than published items.
o III.2.3. Physical description: Physical description is necessary because there
is no uniformity in manuscripts.
o III.2.4. Subject, genre/form, etc.: The cataloger/archivist interprets,
interpolates, and supplies missing information on the context of the
manuscript.
VIII. Examples and notes
 VIII.2. Notes: We changed “is” to “are” in the “Comment” entry.
Integrity of the item
 We will not use this section as we’re not distinguishing between items. We address
manuscripts that are not intact in 5B2.4.
IX. Precataloging decisions
 We need to decide what is a minimal record, what is a full one.
 As much as possible, we replaced “cataloging” with “descriptive”. We may go back
and replace “catalog” with “describe”.
 IX.1.1. Item-level vs. collection-level description: We debated moving this rule further
up in the Introduction but left it where it is for now.
 IX.1.2. Descriptive standard: Add information on which standard to use for early
modern manuscripts: AMREMM or DCRM(MSS)? Also add an appendix on how to
use DCRM(MSS) with medieval manuscripts?
 IX.1.3. Encoding level: DCRM(MSS) minimal vs. full: We removed all references to
“core.” We will finish writing this section once we have a discussion on what we
consider minimal (also applies to Appendix D). At the end of the section, we started
a list of required elements.
 IX.1.4. Drafts, copies, and other versions: We removed this section. Every
manuscript should get its own record/description.
Area 0
0A. Scope
 Are these rules applicable to non-Western manuscripts? When we send the
document out for review, we will ask someone to examine it in that light. We will
decide how to proceed from there.
0B. The basic description
3

We will finish this section when we determine the list of required elements.
(0D). Prescribed sources of information
 We do not have prescribed sources of information so we deleted this section.
0D. Prescribed punctuation
 Our first paragraph “This section describes punctuation for bibliographic (ISBD) …”
is also included as a footnote to the prescribed punctuation sections of Areas 1, 4,
and 5.
0E. Language and writing system of the description
 0E1. General rule: We started the rule with instructions for supplied and derived
information (0E1.1.) and put instructions on transcription in 0E1.2 in keeping with our
emphasis on supplied information over transcribed.
0G. Transcription (numbering may need to be corrected to 0F)
 We decided to keep most of the rules from DCRM(B) since we have two
transcription elements (formal title and statement of responsibility).
 Heather will talk to Deborah Leslie to propose an emendation of the way in which
thorn is used in Appendix G.
 0G2.4. Chronograms: we removed this rule as date is never a transcribed element in
DCRM(MSS).
 0G3.5. Ellipses, square brackets, and virgules. We decided to do the opposite of
DCRM(B) and instruct to transcribe virgules since they are used in so many ways in
various hands and script and cannot always be interpreted. Otherwise replace the
virgule with appropriate modern punctuation.
 0G3.6. Line endings: We added a sentence instructing not to supply virgules when
transcribing the title.
 0G5.3. Information not taken from the chief source of information: We will not use
this rule as the entire manuscript is the chief source of information and we have only
two transcription elements.
 We worked through 0G6.3.
Preface
 Include our charge.
 Use the following language from I.3 of the “DCRM(MSS) Introduction: ALA Annual
2012 revision” version to give an historical context to DCRM(MSS).
“HERE WE TALKED ABOUT THE HISTORY, I.E. THAT APPM ISN’T SUPPORTED ANYMORE BUT
THAT DACS DOESN’T GIVE INSTRUCTION FOR SINGLE ITEM (I BELIEVE THIS WAS FLESHED OUT IN
A FOOTNOTE). WE ALSO MENTIONED THAT WE WERE APPROACHED BY THE MS COMMUNITY
TO CREATE THESE RULES
Members of the Society of American Archivists (SAA) approached the Bibliographic
Standards Committee of RBMS in 2007 about the possibility of creating a cataloging
4
standard for individual manuscripts. DACS (Describing Archives: A Content Standard),
adopted by SAA in 2004 as the standard for archival description, focuses on collectionlevel description of modern manuscripts and archives. AMREMM (Descriptive
Cataloging of Ancient, Medieval, Renaissance and Early Modern Manuscripts) focuses
on manuscripts created before 1600. Individual modern manuscripts call for a standard of
their own, one which bridges the ISAD(G) descriptive framework on which DACS is
based and the ISBD descriptive framework of AMREMM and DCRM”
Appendixes
 Appendix B. Collection-Level Records: We will refer people to DACS.
 Appendix C. Core-Level Records: We will not use.
 Appendix D. Minimal-level Records: Would this include all mandatory elements from
Areas 1-6 plus the required notes in Area 7?
 Appendix E. Variations Requiring a New Record: We’re unsure whether or not we
will use it.
 Appendix G. Early Letterforms and Symbols: We’re unsure whether or not we will
use it. Appendix J. Bibliography can refer people to paleography, etc. resources.
 Appendix H. Individual and Special Issues of Serials: do we need to keep this one?
 Appendix J. Bibliography: we changed the title from Companion Standards. What
about the List of Works Cited section for bibliography?
 Add an appendix on how to use DCRM(MSS) with medieval manuscripts.
To Do
 Margaret will contact Jane Carpenter to schedule a public hearing for ALA Annual
2013.
 Diane will check with the head of the SAA Standards Committee on whether SAA
plans to evaluate DCRM(MSS) with the intention, if it passes evaluation, of
endorsing it as a companion standard to DACS for item-level manuscripts. If so,
would this happen before or after DCRM(MSS) publication?
 Heather will talk to Deborah Leslie to propose an emendation of the way in which
thorn is used in Appendix G.
 All: Determine what we consider a minimal and full record. Go through the rules to
identify which elements are required.
 All: Start work on the appendixes. Margaret will post assignments to the wiki.
Respectfully submitted by Kate Moriarty January 25, 2013