Introduction
Contents:
I. Scope and purpose
II. Relationship to other standards
III. Objectives and principles
IV. Options
V. Language preferences
VI. Spelling and style
VII. Acronyms
VIII. Examples and notes
IX. Integrity of the item
X. Precataloging decisions
XI. Preparation for cataloging
I. Scope and purpose
I.1. Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials
DCRM(MSS) is one of several manuals providing specialized cataloging rules for various formats of rare materials typically found in rare book, archival, manuscript, and special collections repositories.[1] Together, these manuals form Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (DCRM), an overarching concept rather than a publication in its own right. (DCRM component manuals for books and serials are also available, and DCRM manuals for cartographic materials, music, and graphics are in preparation. - this language likely to change)
I.2. Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Manuscripts)
DCRM(MSS) provides guidelines and instructions for descriptive cataloging at the item level of individual manuscripts. Rare books, serials, and graphic materials are out of scope. For manuscript maps and manuscript music it is advised to use those standards specific to those materials, following rules for manuscript versions when applicable.
Photographic or digital reproductions of individual manuscripts, however, are within the scope of these rules. DCRM(MSS) is intended to serve as a companion standard to
Describing Archives: A Content Standard (DACS) for individual manuscripts and as a counterpart to Descriptive Cataloging of Ancient, Medieval, Renaissance, and Early
Modern Manuscripts (AMREMM) for manuscripts of the non-scriptorium early modern era, and modern manuscripts.
[KATE’S NOTES TO JOG OUR MEMORY FOR REWRITE:

I.3. Need for special rules

o We can’t talk about our standards w/out talking about DACS, AMREMM o Do a footnote saying DACS supersedes APPM which provided collection- and item-level description. o Table the I.3B – think in meantime how want to deal w/ it? o It’s dealing with why we’re different from DACS, what are the characteristics of DACS, etc. It’s all over the map. o Bring out Archivists and Catalogers as two different sections. o Should someone tackle this and make suggestions on how to deal with it rather than deal with it now? o Do we really need to talk about how ms cataloging is different from book cataloging? Yes, I think so (MN) o We have several audiences. Are we also writing this Intro to justify ourselves to custodians of DCRM? o Talk about some of the major differences. These are not books but equally they’re not archival collections – hit both of those things. Titles, dates, transcription. o Jenny did: 1X. How manuscripts differ from published materials. Why can’t I use DCRMB? See the wiki. IX. How single item manuscripts differ from collections.

We lost everything in I.3 – need to rewrite o Simple statement on what single item mss are, get part of a collection, unique research & monetary, collection management, repro, digitization,
DACS, AMREMM, mss not self-describing. o History: in 2007 SAA came to BSC … ]
Supplying what isn’t there, correcting what is there, compared to book cataloging.
Description, rather than transcription.
I.3 Need for special rules
[moved from III.1]
Cataloging codes developed to describe published material rely on explicit bibliographic evidence presented in conventional form (e.g., a formal title and statement of responsibility appearing on the title page or its verso, edition and imprint information appearing somewhere in the item, a system of numbering the pages or leaves).
Manuscripts are by definition unpublished, which means they lack the publisher-supplied descriptions that form the basis of the descriptive bibliographic record. Such descriptive information as appears on the manuscript has often been provided by someone other than its creator, or is insufficient to identify the manuscript. Many manuscripts lack even the most basic bibliographic element, a title, so searching by title even for known items is much less effective. To enable a user to gain access to a manuscript, the cataloger must construct a description that accurately identifies its creator, date and place of writing, genre or form, subject, and production stage. Detailed physical description and a note on historical background may also be necessary to explain the item's nature and significance.
Accurate description is more important than accurate transcription, and is often based on interpretation and information supplied by the cataloger.

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 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.
I. 3A. For archivists:
WE HAD A SECTION THAT STARTED:
WHY SINGLE ITEM? FOR RESEARCH OR MONETARY VALUE; OTHER
REASONS?
Local significance
Repository is collecting deeply in that area
For digitization
Reproduction
Security, collection management
I.3B. For catalogers: How manuscripts differ from published materials
APPM 0.8-0.11:
The significance of mss. depends heavily on context of their creation, i.e. provenance; respect du fonds is fundamental
They're often managed at the collective level; collection level description is practical, and the title is usually supplied
They're often unique, usually unpublished and generated as byproducts of human activity; usually lack a formal title page or other label; chief source of information is the finding aid
Transcription is much less important for manuscripts than for published material, since there are no other copies to differentiate from
Context is more important, and cataloger needs to provide more context in order for the user to assess the relevance of the manuscript to his/her research
Creator may be the author, but alternatively may be the collector, accumulator, etc.-different concept from that of the author of a printed work

Description of a manuscript may be within the context of a bibliographical record or of a finding aid for a larger collection
I.3B1. Descriptive conventions
--Conceptual framework: Archival description based on ISAD(G) rather than ISBD
--DCRM(MSS) follows conventions established in DACS: for instance, no abbreviations in the description, e.g. "volume," "pages," "circa," "approximately," etc. are spelled out.
Exception: "cm"
--description may be in the context of a bibliographical record or of a finding aid; hence the use of the phrase "additional access point" rather than "added entry," “element” rather than “area” of the description, etc. (also following DACS)
--description of the item may be only one level of a multilevel description of a larger collection (in the context of a hierarchy of catalog records or a finding aid)
I.3B2. Transcription
--archival description places greater emphasis on context, less emphasis on transcription, than bibliographic description of a publication does; the heart of the description is not the title and production information but the summary note. (Cf. APPM 0.8-0.11)
--most manuscripts have no formal title, are not self-describing; so transcription is much less important for manuscripts than for published materials
--most manuscripts are unique, and don't exist in multiple "editions"; hence there is less need to distinguish them from each other than there is with books
--in archival practice (e.g. DACS), no square brackets for cataloger-supplied title or other information
I.3B3. Title and statement of responsibility area
--Most manuscripts have no formal title or SOR
--In a manuscript, unlike most published items, the work's title and statement of responsibility may be inaccurate, misleading, irrelevant, or absent. Even when it is present, accurate, and descriptive, the title is generally much less important in a manuscript than in a published work. Most manuscripts are not known by a formal title appearing on the item, if they are known at all.
From the Oct. 2011 Folger meeting: Distinction between creation and production.
Creator of a manuscript may be the author, but alternatively could be the collector, accumulator, etc.; archival concept of a creator differs from that of a book author
Material type varies much more widely for manuscripts and archives than for published materials, so the description has to address the question, “What is it?”I.3B5. Physical description area

--often, pages are unnumbered. Counting pages or leaves can be enormously timeconsuming for a long manuscript without page numbers. The time required must be weighed against the value of the item and the risk of theft (both of which may be low).
--no need for separate rules for physical description of a single-sheet manuscript as there is for a single-sheet printed item (broadside).
--modern manuscripts are not primarily described in terms of pages, but rather in terms of items: 1 item (3 pages), not 3 pages.
--for early manuscripts, extent is given in terms of leaves even if the manuscript is written on both sides.
I.3B6. Note area
--the user needs more information on the manuscript's biographical and/or historical context in order to identify it and determine whether to look at it or not (e.g., in manuscript description the subject content is often an important tool for identification, which is not the case in book description)
--the content of the manuscript often needs to be summarized in order for the user to determine its utility for his/her research
--there may be restrictions on access, use, or reproduction for a manuscript which would not be placed on its published counterpart, calling for additional notes
--provenance may be of greater significance in interpreting the manuscript than it would be for a book or other published work
--manuscript may bear a complex relationship to the published version of the same work, and/or it may be part of a larger collection; these circumstances require notes to place the manuscript in context
I.4. Scope of application
DCRM(MSS) is appropriate for the description of single item manuscripts not included in a collection; manuscripts within a collection that are identified as having added value
(intellectual and/or monetary); a group of one type of manuscripts (e.g., letters, diaries, etc.); or a small group of manuscripts where more detail may be warranted. Examples of the types of material covered by DCRM(MSS) include: a letter; a diary; a manuscript document, such as a deed or a will; a manuscript or typescript draft of a work later published, or intended for publication; a published work subsequently copied out by hand; or a book that was never published but circulated in manuscript form. In the case of a mixed-material item, such as a scrapbook or a photograph album with manuscript captions, the cataloger will need to use judgment to determine whether DCRM(MSS),
DACS, or another standard such as DCRM(G) is most appropriate as the basis of the description.
AEB: While we are aiming for 1600 onward I don't think we should limit by date of material here; books did that with DCRB but set that aside with DCRM(B); For manuscripts there are plenty of things that date before 1600 that you might not want to

use AMREMM for and there are certainly things that date after 1600 that might warrant the more complex description of AMREMM.
I.5. Application within the bibliographic record
These rules contain instructions for the descriptive elements in bibliographic records or archival finding aids only. They do not address the construction and assignment of controlled headings used as access points, although brief instructions relating to headings and other access points do appear throughout (e.g., Appendix F is entirely devoted to recommendations for uncontrolled title added entries).
II. Relationship to other standards
II.1. AACR2, ISBD, APPM, AMREMM, DACS, and other cataloging documentation
II.1. DACS, APPM, AMREMM, AACR2, DCRM(B), and other cataloging documentation
DCRM(MSS) is a unique[aeb1] attempt to create descriptive rules for modern manuscripts. It represents the blending of several different standards, including APPM, and its replacement DACS; AMREMM; and AACR2 chapter 4, as well as FRBR and
ISAD(G), together with the DCRM framework.. The Rare Books and Manuscripts
Section of the Association of College and Research Libraries, American Library
Association, authorizes DCRM(MSS) as its standard for description of individual manuscripts [we hope it will, that is]. [aeb2] DCRM(MSS) deviates in substance from the above standards when required to resolve conflicts between different standards and for specific manuscript practices and reasons, following manuscript traditions as appropriate.
In matters of style, presentation, wording, and subarrangement within areas,
DCRM(MSS) follows its own conventions.[aeb3]
Refer to other standards for guidance and instructions on matters of description not covered in DCRM(MSS). The relevant sections of AACR2 and LCRI, and/or
DACS[aeb4] , must be consulted for rules governing name and uniform title headings to be used as access points for authors, collectors, compilers, interviewees and interviewers, etc. See DACS for additional guidance on formulating the headings for individuals, families, and corporate bodies as they are likely to be encountered in cataloging manuscripts. For subject headings, numerous controlled vocabularies are available; within the United States, the subject headings of the Library of Congress are widely used.
Consult local documentation for assignment of call numbers. For genre/form headings, consult the RBMS Controlled Vocabularies online. Terms from other authorized thesauri
(e.g., the Art & Architecture Thesaurus Online) may also be used as appropriate.
[aeb1]Not sure what is the best adjective/word to use here.
[aeb2]Do we need this statement; what about authorization from SAA and DACS? “The
Society of America Archivists authorizes DCRM(MSS) as its interpretation of DACS in the case of single item manuscripts.”
[aeb3]This is worded exactly like this is (S) too, which seems odd as (S) would follow, in-part, (B); of course (MSS) deviates from (B) probably the most.

[aeb4]I realize that DACS basically follows/is copied from AACR2, but institutions may only have access to/or experience with DACS and not AACR2.
Q: What part of DACS is this from? Principle 1 from the Nature of Archival Holdings?
I'm not sure this holds as true here as archival materials can cover everything including published, graphic, cartographic, music, audio, video, etc. When these items are described individually they would then turn to the appropriate description rules - AEB
04.18.12
DCRM(MSS) provides guidelines and instructions for descriptive cataloging of individual manuscripts. It is intended to serve as a counterpart to AMREMM ( Descriptive
Cataloging of Ancient, Medieval, Renaissance, and Early Modern Manuscripts, Chicago,
2003) for post-1600 manuscripts, and as a companion standard to DACS ( Describing
Archives: A Content Standard , Chicago, 2004) for individual manuscripts. Manuscript maps, music, serials, and graphics are out of scope, with the exception of individual and special issues of manuscript serials that are cataloged separately (see Appendix H?).
However, photographic or digital reproductions of individual manuscripts are within the scope of these rules.
II.2. MARC 21 and EAD
MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data is the presumed format for presentation and communication of machine-readable cataloging, and EAD is the presumed format for presentation and communication of machine-readable finding aids. Use of DCRM(MSS), however, need not be restricted to a machine environment, and MARC 21 and/or EAD is not mandatory. Most examples in the body of DCRM(MSS) are shown using ISBD punctuation; MARC 21 and/or EAD coding appears only in some of the appendixes.
Archivists and catalogers using MARC 21 should follow MARC 21 documentation for input, and be aware of how their bibliographic systems interpret MARC 21 codes to automatically generate display features. If using EAD, they should follow EAD documentation for input, and be aware of how their local style sheets interpret EAD codes to automatically generate display features. In both cases, this usually means, for example, that the archivist/cataloger omits punctuation between areas, and certain words prefacing formal notes.
III. Objectives and principles
The instructions contained in DCRM(MSS) are formulated according to the objectives and principles set forth below. These objectives and principles seek to articulate the purpose and nature of specialized descriptive rules for manuscripts. They are informed by concepts informing two disparate descriptive traditions, bibliographic and archival. Like all the DCRM modules, DCRM(MSS) is influenced by the bibliographic cataloging tradition exemplified in the Anglo-American cataloging tradition, as well as the
International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions’ Functional
Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). They assume familiarity with the

FRBR terms used to categorize entities that are the products of intellectual or artistic endeavor (work, expression, manifestation, and item), although the FRBR model is less relevant to manuscripts than to published material, since most manuscripts are unique exemplars of unique works.
DCRM(MSS) also serves the archival community, and consequently draws upon concepts and principles of archival description. Many of its intended users will apply
DCRM(MSS) within the framework of archival description and ISAD(G), although the guidelines are intended to be equally useful for those working within an ISBD framework and creating records in a conventional library system. These objectives and principles will provide catalogers, processors, and administrators within both descriptive traditions a better understanding of the underlying rationale for DCRM(MSS) instructions.
III.1. Functional objectives for describing manuscripts at the item level
The primary objectives in cataloging individual manuscripts are no different from those in cataloging other materials. These objectives focus on meeting user needs to find, identify, select, and obtain materials. However, users of manuscripts often bring specialized requirements to these tasks that cannot be met by general cataloging rules, such as those contained in RDA or AACR2, or even by rules developed for archival description (DACS). In addition, the standard production practices assumed in general cataloging rules developed for the description of published material do not apply to manuscripts. The following DCRM(MSS) objectives are designed to accommodate these important differences.
III.1.1. Users must be able to discern readily from the description that an item is a manuscript
The ability to identify a manifestation of an expression of a work as a manuscript is critical to the user tasks of finding, identifying, selecting, and obtaining manuscript resources. Whether users wish to study the manuscript as an artifact, or because it represents a different version of a published work, or because the work exists only as a single manuscript exemplar, they must be able to discern at a glance that it is a manuscript, as opposed to a printed publication.
III.1.2. Users must be able to perform most identification and selection tasks without direct access to the materials
Users of manuscripts perform identification and selection tasks under circumstances that require a detailed description for the item as an initial point of entry (e.g., consultation from a distance, limited access due to the fragile condition of the item, inability to physically browse collections housed in restricted areas, absence of readily available information in standard bilbiographies or catalogs). Accuracy of description increases subsequent efficiency for both users and collection managers. The same accuracy contributes to the long-term preservation of the materials themselves, by reducing

unnecessary circulation and examination of materials that do not precisely meet users’ requirements.
III.1.3 Users must be able to find, identify, select, and understand a manuscript based on the description of its context
Context includes subject content, genre/form, biographical or historical information, and archival level of description.
Subject content and genre/form are often important tools for finding, identifying, selecting, and understanding a manuscript. Many, perhaps, most of the works in manuscripts are untitled, and most are by obscure persons, so users most often rely on topical and/or genre/form searches. For example, someone doing research on Gold Rush diaries will not search for the diarists’ names (since most are not well known), but by topic or genre/form.
In addition, users must be provided with information about the individuals, families, organizations, transaction(s), and process(es) that generated, assembled, accumulated, or maintained the manuscript, where that is key to finding, selecting, identifying a manuscript and/or understanding its content.
If the manuscript is part of a larger archival collection, users must be able to place it within the appropriate level of the hierarchical description of the collection, e.g. series, subseries, folder, item.
III.1.4. Users must be able to investigate physical processes and post-production history exemplified in materials described
Users of manuscripts routinely investigate a variety of artifactual and post-production aspects of materials. Users wish to know about the material aspects of the manuscript such as writing support, method of production, script, alterations, housing, etc. They may want to locate materials that are related by binding style and structure, former owner, etc.
The ability of users to identify materials that fit these criteria depends upon full and accurate descriptions and the provision of appropriate access points.
III.2. Principles for describing manuscripts at the item level
To meet the objectives listed above, DCRM relies upon the following seven principles.
These principles are influenced by the general principles of archival and bibliographic description. For overarching principles relating to the DCRM suite of manuals in general, see the introduction to DCRM(B), III.2.
III.2.1. Rules provide guidelines on constructing an accurate description of a manuscript
Manuscripts are not self-describing. It is generally necessary for the cataloger or archivist to supply a description rather than basing the description solely on what appears in or on

the manuscript. This description is based on a combination of internal and external evidence. These rules provide guidance on providing information on the content of a manuscript and its physical characteristics. The primary elements in a description of a single item manuscript are a title, creator (if known), and contextual information relating to its content or physical attributes.
[Title should describe the nature of the manuscript regardless of whether it is supplied by the cataloger or appears on the item.]
III.2.2. Rules provide guidance for standardization and normalization of dates and placenames
III.2.3. Rules provide guidance for describing a manuscript as a unique artifact
Manuscripts are unique artifacts. Manuscript description focuses on the nature and purpose of the manuscript as a unique item rather than distinguishing it from other manifestations.
III.2.4. Rules provide guidance for the inclusion of physical descriptions
III.2.5. Rules provide guidelines for providing subject matter, genre/form, biographical, historical context, and archival level of description
This appears either hierarchically dispersed (in a finding aid) or within a description of a single item… [These are either access points in a bib record or doesn’t appear at all but are important and are often derived from the items themselves and not available elsewhere]
III.2.6. Rules provide for the description of the manuscript in the context of a finding aid or a bibliographic record in a catalog
[We provide guidance on cases where an item’s description would inherit the characteristics of a higher level…] Borrow language from p. xv of DACS—“Information provided at each level of description must be appropriate to that level” and navigating multi-level descriptions. [ note to us: do we actually do this? we need a note/example for 580 field explaining the archival level when it appears as a stand-alone record]
III.2.7.
Rules are adapted from the last revision of DCRM(B), with DACS serving as a secondary reference point
DCRM(MSS) follows existing DCRM(B) structure and vocabulary, and DACS principles, when possible. Any additional specialized vocabulary necessary for description and access of manuscripts occurs in a clear and consistent manner in
DCRM(MSS) rules, appendixes, and glossary entries. DCRM(MSS) deviates from
DCRM(B) only to the extent required by differences between published and manuscript materials.

IV. Options
Available options are indicated in one of two ways.
 “Optionally” introduces an alternative treatment of an element.
[note: Change
“Alternative rule” in 1F1.1, 1F1.2, and 1F2.1 to “Optionally”]
 “If considered important” indicates that more information may be added in a note, and thus signals choices for more or less depth in the description. This phrase covers the entire range between best practice on the one end, and highly specialized practices on the other.
The describing agency may wish to establish policies and guidelines on the application of options, leave the use of options to the discretion of the cataloger, or use a combination of the two.
V. Language preferences
DCRM(MSS) is written for an English-speaking context. Agencies preparing descriptions in the context of a different language should translate instructions and guidelines prescribing or implying the use of English into their preferred language (see 4B1, 4B6.1,
4C1, and areas 5 and 7).
VI. Spelling and style
DCRM(MSS) uses Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary , eleventh edition, as its authority in matters of spelling, and in matters of style, the sixteenth edition of the
Chicago Manual of Style .
VII. Acronyms
AACR2 Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, second edition
AMREMM Descriptive Cataloging of Ancient, Medieval, Renaissance, and Early
Modern Manuscripts
APPM
DACS
Archives, Personal Papers, and Manuscripts
Describing Archives: A Content Standard
DCRM Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials
DCRM(B) Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Books)
DCRM(C) Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Cartographic)
DCRM(G) Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Graphics)
DCRM(M) Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Music)
FRBR
ISAD(G)
ISBD
Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records
General International Standard Archival Description
International Standard Bibliographic Description

RBMS Rare Books and Manuscripts Section, Association of College and
Research Libraries, American Library Association
RDA
SAA
Resource Description and Access
Society of American Archivists
VIII. Examples and notes
VIII.1. Examples. The examples are not in themselves prescriptive, but are meant to provide a model of reliable application and interpretation of the rule in question. A word, phrase, element, or entire area may be illustrated; ISBD punctuation is given as needed only for the portion illustrated.
VIII.2. Notes. The instructions and guidelines in Area 7 are written in imperative form.
This does not imply that all notes are required; on the contrary, most many notes are not
(see 7A1.5). Consult the other areas of DCRM(MSS) in order to ascertain what is required and what is optional in any given situation (see 7A1). The conventions for notes included as part of the examples are as follows.
“Note” indicates that the note is required if applicable to the situation.
“Optional note” indicates that the note is not required. The labeling of a note as
“optional” in these rules carries no judgment about its importance (see introductory section IV); certain notes designated as “optional” may in fact be almost universally applied.
“Comment” prefaces details needed to adequately explain the example, and are not to be confused with notes appearing within the bibliographical description.
IX. Integrity of the item (defects and alterations) [now that we’ve changed this, does it still belong here, or can the concept be covered elsewhere, less prominently?]
Manuscripts, especially older manuscripts, are sometimes in an incomplete or altered state when they reach the cataloger. One of the cataloger’s tasks is to ascertain (within reasonable constraints) whether and how much the manuscript in hand deviates from its original state. A manuscript may have been separated and be in two (or more) hands.
Pages may be missing. Pages may have been added at a later date either because it was doctored or it was part of its “natural” life.
X. Precataloging decisions
Before a bibliographic record can be created for a manuscript, appropriate decisions must be made regarding the array of descriptive options available to the cataloger. These precataloging decisions include: determining whether DCRM or DACS rules will govern the description, choosing the level of cataloging that will be applied, and determining the extent to which various options in the rules will be exercised. Because DCRM(MSS) was

written to address the special needs of users of manuscripts, it is likely to be the appropriate cataloging code for the majority of individual manuscripts held in special collections. However, for some categories of manuscripts, the cataloging objectives (see introductory section III) may be met by the application of options within DCRM(MSS) and DACS that permit less detail in the description. Full-level DCRM(MSS) records that employ all possible descriptive options will not necessarily be the best choice for every item. The following section provides guidance for catalogers and cataloging administrators faced with these decisions and identifies some of the institutional and contextual factors that should be taken into consideration. It assumes that certain routine choices will already have been made, such as whether the encoding standard for the description will be MARC 21 or EAD and whether individual items within a larger collection will be cataloged individually. Institutions may promote efficiency by setting cataloging policies for specific categories of materials in their collections rather than making decisions on an item-by-item basis. For example, an institution may decide to catalog all literary manuscripts using DCRM(MSS). A mechanism for easily making exceptions to general cataloging policy is desirable as well. If, for example, an institution buys a manuscript notable for its unusual format or handwriting style, description of and access to these features ought to be given in the bibliographic record, even if it is not the institution’s usual policy to describe them.
X.1. Decisions to make before beginning the description
X.1.1. Item-level vs. collection-level description
Determine whether the material will receive item-level description, collection-level description, or some combination of the two. Item-level cataloging represents the normative application of the DCRM(MSS) rules. Guidelines for creating collection-level descriptions are found in DACS. Collection-level cataloging is usually faster than itemlevel—sometimes dramatically so—but is attended by such a substantial loss of specificity that its use as the sole final cataloging for a group of items should be chosen only after careful consideration. The lack of specificity can be mitigated through provision of some sort of item-level control, such as an inventory list, finding aid, or database, and such an approach is highly recommended.
Collection-level cataloging of rare materials is most suitable when items have minimal value in themselves but derive value as part of a collection. Use of collection-level control by itself may be appropriate when users are unlikely to be seeking known items, or the risk of inadvertent purchase of duplicate individual items is considered insignificant. Collection-level control alone is unlikely to provide adequate evidence to identify materials following a theft.
A combination approach would entail individual cataloging of all or selected items in the collection in addition to the creation of a collection-level record. Such an approach may involve phased processing, whereby the cataloger creates a collection-level record to provide immediate basic access to the collection, and then later creates item-level records for priority items as time and resources permit.

When to catalog at the item level [from SAA workshop, "Applying DACS to Single-Item
Manuscript Cataloging"]:
Items have high research value relative to other holdings
Material has high financial value
Material has local significance
Standardized subject access and contextualization are priorities
X.1.2. Cataloging code: DACS vs. AMREMM vs. DCRM(MSS)
Determine which cataloging code will govern the description. Each code contains optional rules in addition to the required ones, and each allows varying levels of cataloging depth. Needs new paragraph
X.1.3. Encoding level: DCRM(MSS) minimal vs. core vs. full Determine whether the description will be done at a minimal, core, or full level. Each level has its particular uses with attendant advantages and disadvantages.
DCRM(MSS) minimal level provides for faithful transcription and exact physical description, but requires neither notes nor headings. Minimal-level records can be produced quite quickly. Because name and subject headings may be lacking, the materials represented by these records may be inaccessible through all but known-item searches, and so should be used only after careful consideration. DCRM(MSS) minimal level may be suitable when accurate physical description is desired but a record with few or no access points is acceptable, or when particular language expertise among current cataloging staff is insufficient for proper subject analysis. For further information on creating DCRM(MSS) minimal-level descriptions, see Appendix D.
DCRM(MSS) core level provides for faithful transcription and exact physical description, a full complement of name headings, and at least one subject heading, but requires few notes.[4] Core-level records may be suitable for items or collections that carry enough bibliographical or artifactual significance to benefit from detailed description and controlled heading access, but for which the omission of most notes is acceptable. For further information on creating DCRM(BMSS)core-level descriptions, see Appendix C.
DCRM(MSS) full level represents the normative application of these rules, yet encompasses a range of potential levels of detail. Full-level records provide for faithful transcription and detailed, complete physical description. Although some notes are required (e.g., the source of the title proper if not the title page need new example), most are optional and can be applied selectively depending on the nature of a collection or an institution’s needs. For example, signature statements, descriptions of illustrative elements, names of illustrators and others responsible for such elements, and particular attributes of the item in hand may be included or omitted as desired. Although treatment of headings is outside the scope of DCRM(MSS), full-level records typically contain a full complement of name and subject headings. In addition to those typically given to general materials, DCRM(MSS) full-level records may contain headings for compilers, collectors, recipients, illustrators, engravers, former owners, binders, printers, publishers,

etc. The name headings need not be established using authority records, although full authority work, especially if contributed to the LC/NACO Authority File, will result in greater consistency of headings and improved access.[5] The addition of genre/form headings is particularly encouraged in full-level records. These may be used to provide access by genre (e.g., Medical formularies, Poetical miscellanies) or by physical form
(e.g., Manuscript waste, Annotations). Prefer (?) terms found in the official thesauri maintained by the RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee;[6] terms from other authorized thesauri (e.g., Art and Architecture Thesaurus) may also be used as appropriate.
X.1.4. Drafts, copies, and other versions
If two or more items can be identified as drafts, copies, or versions of the same work, decide whether to describe them using a single bibliographic record or multiple records.
It is taken as a default approach in DCRM(MSS) that a separate record will be made for each manuscript version of a work. However, this default approach is not prescriptive and indeed may not be desirable in every situation. (Would we ever describe two different manuscript versions of a work in the same catalog record?) For further guidance on the cataloging of bibliographic variants, see Appendix E.
X.2. Factors to consider in making these decisions
Consider the following factors when determining appropriate levels of description and access for materials awaiting cataloging. These factors will help to identify items that might deserve more detailed descriptions or higher priority treatment.
X.2.1. Institution’s mission and user needs
Evaluate the relevance of the items awaiting cataloging to the institution’s mission and the needs of its users. Ideally, the institution will have developed internal documentation that will facilitate such an evaluation, including a mission statement, collection development guidelines, and a listing of constituent users and their anticipated needs. The needs of both patrons (researchers, teachers, students, etc.) and staff (collection development, reference, technical services, etc.) should be taken into consideration.
X.2.2. Institutional and departmental resources
Evaluate institutional and departmental resources, especially staffing levels, expertise, and current workloads.
Is staff able to keep up with the inflow of new materials?
Is there a reasonable balance between resources devoted to acquiring materials and those devoted to processing them?
Is current staff expertise in languages, subject areas, descriptive standards, and encoding standards adequate for implementing and/or completing proposed work plans?
Is staff able to work concurrently with more than one code and/or description level?
Are funding and space available for hiring new temporary or permanent staff with the necessary qualifications?

Are adequate reference sources, such as specialized bibliographies, available for staff use?
How many other projects are in process and what are their requirements and priorities?
The regular review of cataloging priorities is highly recommended and should include discussions with curatorial, public services, technical services, and preservation staff.
X.2.3. Market value and conditions of acquisition of the item or collection
Consider the conditions of acquisition and the estimated market worth of the item or collection awaiting cataloging.
Does the monetary or public relations value of the material justify a higher level of access than would otherwise apply?
Have any access requirements been imposed by a donor as part of the terms of acquisition?
Is the item or collection accompanied by bibliographic descriptions that will facilitate cataloging?
X.2.4. Intellectual and physical characteristics of the item or collection
Finally, evaluate the intellectual and physical characteristics of the items awaiting cataloging.
Is there a unifying characteristic that would justify and facilitate the description of the materials as a collection (e.g., author, publisher, place of publication, genre/form, etc.)?
Is a particular collection renowned?
Do the materials have a topical focus that has recently acquired importance or urgency
(e.g., due to a scholarly conference hosted by the institution or the hiring of a new professor with a particular specialty)?
Were the items purchased primarily for their content?
Do the specific copies have bibliographic or artifactual value?
Is the institution collecting deeply in the area?
Are detailed descriptions likely to reveal bibliographic variants that will be of interest to researchers?
Are detailed descriptions likely to help in the acquisition of similar materials?
Is the item or collection vulnerable to theft or vandalism?
Would a more detailed description help prevent unnecessary handling by staff and researchers?
The workbook handed out at the SAA workshop, "Applying DACS to Single-Item
Manuscript Cataloging," March 10, 2008, includes a very useful section on "Preparation for Cataloging" (pp. 59-61) which we might adopt. I've taken the liberty of cribbing the text of these 3 pages from the workbook below--MN
XI. Preparation for cataloging
Does the manuscript meet your repository's criteria for single item cataloging? How much time will you spend on:

--Examining the manuscript
--Research in external sources
--Creating the catalog record
Examining the Manuscript
Review any existing descriptions
Examine the whole manuscript, especially looking at:
--Cover, spine, pastedowns --Annotations, inscriptions, bookplates, stamps, labels --
Pages preceding and following text --Beginning and end of text --Major divisions of text
--Drawings, maps, photographs, other visual material --Tipped in, laid in, accompanying material
Based on your examination:
--Does this manuscript meet your repository's criteria for individual cataloging?
--What kinds of name, title, subject, and genre access are most important to your staff and readers?
What to Look For
What is the genre or genres?
What is the date or date span?
Who created the manuscript? Are there other associated names?
For what purpose(s) was it created?
Who has owned or used it?
For what purpose(s) has it been used?
Is any part of the text a "known" work?
--Has the work been published? When? In what versions?
--What version of the work is represented in the manuscript? Is it complete?
--Was the manuscript created by the author of the work, or is the manuscript a copy made by someone else?
Consulting External Sources
Consult sources such as:
--Published editions of the manuscript
--Descriptions by former owners, vendors, or donors
--Biographical sources
--Bibliographies of authors' works
--Reference sources concerning historical periods and events
--Published editions of works represented in the manuscript
Look for information that will affect the most important access points
Set a time limit for external research
Assembling Descriptive Information
Identify at least:
--Documentary form
--Language
--Time period
--Physical extent

Try to identify, as appropriate:
--Creator(s)
--Title(s) appearing on manuscript
--Author, uniform title, and version of a literary work
--Dates or date span
--Place of creation
--Subject content
--Associated names
--Evidence of ownership and use
Determine research values and appropriate level of detail for description and access
If you are not familiar with the genre, time period, subject matter, language, script, or handwriting, consider asking a specialist for help
[1] The term “rare materials” is used to refer to any special materials that repositories have chosen to distinguish from general materials by the ways in which they house, preserve, or collect them. Rarity in the narrow sense of “scarce” may or may not be a feature of these materials.
[2] These thesauri include: Binding Terms; Genre Terms; Paper Terms; Printing and
Publishing Evidence; Provenance Evidence; and Type Evidence.
[3] A good source is Peter Beal, A Dictionary of English Manuscript Terminology, 1450-
2000 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).
[4] If an institution is a BIBCO participant contributing core-level records as part of the
Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC), all headings must be established in the
LC/NACO and LC/SACO Authority Files.
[5] If an institution is a BIBCO participant contributing full-level records as part of the
Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC), all headings must be established in the
LC/NACO and LC/SACO Authority Files.
[6] These thesauri include: Binding Terms; Genre Terms; Paper Terms; Printing and
Publishing Evidence; Provenance Evidence; and Type Evidence.