Presented at RDA & Rare Materials Seminar, 6 November 2015 Edinburgh, hosted by the Cataloguing & Indexing Group in Scotland and organised with support from members of RBMS, EURIG, RBSCG, CIG, IFLA and JSC for Development of RDA

1. 1
RDA & Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials:
Developing Policy Statements for Special Collections Resources
Francis Lapka, Yale Center for British Art
Audrey Pearson, Beinecke Library, Yale University
This presentation will describe the ongoing work of the ACRL/RBMS Descriptive
Cataloging of Rare Materials Task Force, which is charged to create an RDA-compatible
set of guidelines for cataloging rare materials.
We’ll start by giving a quick overview of the set of manuals known as Descriptive
Cataloging of Rare Materials (DCRM). We’ll then describe the work of our current task
force, with an overview of the form and function of the policy statements that we will
produce. Next, we’ll demonstrate some of the similarities and differences in cataloging
materials according to DCRM and RDA; we’ll provide several examples to illustrate
these differences. We’ll conclude with a guess about when and how the task force’s work
may be completed, and we’ll declare our hopes for wider collaboration in development
of the standard in the years to come.
Our project -- the fruit of which we will are likely to call RBMS Policy Statements
-- builds upon a legacy of rare materials cataloging standards developed primarily by
RBMS and the Library of Congress, in collaboration with library colleagues throughout
the Anglo-American cataloging community.
Our standard began as ​Bibliographic Description of Rare Books​(BDRB), which
was published in 1981 as the interpretations of the Library of Congress for AACR2. In
1991, the revision of BDRB was renamed ​Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Books​(DCRB).
Since 1998, RBMS has engaged in a major revision and expansion of the standard, to

2. 2
provide specialized cataloging rules for the various formats of rare materials typically
found in special collections.
The new guidelines are collectively known as ​Descriptive Cataloging of Rare
Materials ​(DCRM), and include manuals for Books, published in 2006, Serials,
published in 2008, and Graphics, published in 2013. The final manuals in this series --
for Cartographic Materials, Music, and Manuscripts -- will all be published in the year to
come. All DCRM guidelines, including those not yet published, are interpretations and
extensions of AACR2. This means that they are, in places, not wholly compatible with
RDA.
In 2013, the RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee charged the present task
force to undertake a complete revision of the DCRM manual for Books, to make it
compatible with RDA. Early on, however, the task force decided the revision should not
be limited to Books alone. Instead, the task force would attempt to consolidate the
instructions for all formats currently included in the DCRM suite. This consolidated
treatment of varying formats follows the principles of RDA itself; but it also drastically
expands the scope of the project, in the immediate term at least.
After we made this decision, it was agreed that the new RDA-compliant and
consolidated rules for rare materials would not be a true revision of DCRM, but would
instead be considered an altogether new text, with the provisional name DCRM2.
At the start of our work, it was thought that Manuscripts would also be among
the formats within the scope of DCRM2. However, as we began drafting our new
guidelines, it became quickly apparent that the instructions for manuscripts were
frequently outliers, requiring policies that differed from those for published material.
Because of this, the task force has decided to defer treatment of manuscript material
until after an initial version of our work is complete. When it becomes time to turn our

3. 3
attention to guidelines for manuscripts, we stand to benefit from the work accomplished
by the JSC working group for archives, which will be formed very soon.
Structure: from DCRM to RBMS Policy Statements
In form and function, the RBMS Policy Statements will closely resemble existing
policy statements available in the “Resources” section of the RDA Toolkit. RBMS Policy
Statements will extend and refine RDA guidelines, with a network of links connecting
corresponding rules. RBMS Policy Statements will not repeat guidelines in RDA that are
valid for the description of rare materials.
This form of instructions represents a significant change from the existing DCRM
manuals, in which guidelines from AACR2 are integrated with guidelines for rare
materials. The DCRM manuals can, in large part, stand alone for guidance on the
portions of a record concerning descriptive cataloging.
Accustomed to this form of DCRM, the task force had originally proposed the
creation of workflow documents that would weave together the texts of RDA and of the
RBMS Policy Statements to create something similar to the experience of using the
existing version of DCRM. The task force abandoned plans for this kind of workflow in
the spring of this year following discussions with the JSC, who cited concerns about
reproducing large amounts of RDA text within a separate set of guidelines.
As already mentioned, the new version of DCRM will take the form of a set of
policy statements that extend RDA. Most will provide instructions that will be broad
enough to be applied to all rare materials; as in RDA proper, some policy statements will
specify exceptions or alternatives depending on format, such as music or serials.
In the existing versions of DCRM, Library of Congress rule interpretations of
AACR2 serve as the base text for our guidelines. For the forthcoming RBMS Policy

4. 4
Statements, the task force has decided not to use the Library of Congress-PCC Policy
Statements as our default position. We made this change in order to remove an
additional dependency from a system of guidelines that is already multi-layered. The
decision was also made with an eye to setting up the RBMS Policy Statements for a more
international user base. Additionally, we are working with an assumption that all or
most of our instructions concerning music should be in line with the Music Library
Association Best Practices.
The scope of our present work corresponds primarily to the RDA section on
recording attributes of Manifestation and Item, found in chapters 1-4. Systematically,
we compare each instruction in RDA with the corresponding guidelines in the existing
DCRM modules. Where there are differences, we ask ourselves “is there a ​rare
materials ​reason to differ?” A rare materials reason to differ should be justified by the
slightly different user tasks specific to rare materials, as we will describe later. We apply
the same analysis to the examples provided by RDA, asking whether there is a need for
rare materials examples, even if the RDA guideline does not require a modification.
Where our policy statements differ from RDA, we will almost always provide examples.
Broadly, there are three categories of policy statement content:
1. Guidelines for recording information ​differently ​than as instructed by
RDA.
2. Guidelines that ​build upon​the RDA instruction with additional details
useful for rare materials cataloging.
3. Guidelines that treat a topic​not covered​by RDA.

5. 5
2.3.3.2 Sources of Information
[RDA]
Take parallel titles proper ​from any
source within the resource​. If the title
proper is taken from outside the resource,
take parallel titles proper from the same
source.
[RBMS PS]
Take parallel titles proper ​from the same
source as the title proper ​(see ​2.3.2.2​).
In the example above, the RBMS Policy Statement differs from RDA, because the
user of rare materials expects title and statement of responsibility information to
represent text that is on the title page -- without the addition of text from other sources.
1.9.2.1 [Supplied Dates] Actual Year Known
[RDA]: If the actual year is known,
record the year.
[RBMS PS]: Indicate the basis for the
conjecture in a note.
EXAMPLE
[2003]
​EXAMPLE
[1876]
Note on Publication
Statement:​Publication
date from Bibliography of
American literature.
Here, the RBMS PS adds additional guidance to the RDA instruction. The
addition reflects the importance of recording a justification for supplied dates.

6. 6
1.7.5 Symbols
[RDA]: -
[RBMS PS]:
1.7.5.x Rebuses
Replace pictures in rebuses with the intended words in square
brackets.
Make an explanatory note (see​2.17​)
​EXAMPLE
The [Bute] interest in the [city], or, The
[bridge] in the [hole]
Note on Title​: Title in the form of a rebus. Bute
represented as a boot in the rebus.
This RBMS Policy Statement -- on the treatment of rebuses -- is an example of a
topic not explicitly covered in RDA.
RDA contains about a dozen instructions for “Early Printed Resources,” generally
in the form of exceptions or alternatives. Where these instructions are acceptable as is,
the RBMS policy statement says only to apply the alternative or exception. In some
cases, the RBMS policy statement is compatible with the exception, but provides more
information. In a few places, our draft policy statement is not compatible with an RDA
exception for early printed resources. For example, RDA provides this instruction in
Sources of Information (2.2.2.2):
Exception
Early printed resources. ​If an early printed resource (or a reproduction of
it) lacks a title page, title sheet, or title card (or an image of it), use as the
preferred source of information the first of the following sources that has a
title:
a) a colophon (or an image of a colophon)
b) a cover or jacket issued with the resource (or an image of a cover
or jacket)
c) a caption (or an image of a caption)

7. 7
The current draft of the RBMS policy statement suggests that the preferred source (for
resources lacking a title page) should vary based on the type of material (monographic
text, serial, music, etc.).
Ultimately, we’ll want all RBMS Policy Statements to be​​compatible with RDA’s
instructions for early printed resources. If we find that an RDA instruction is
unsatisfactory, then our community needs to make a compelling case for revision of the
RDA guideline.
As our task force reviews RDA, there are areas -- including areas outside of the
exceptions for early printed resources -- where we feel strongly that what is needed is
not a policy statement, but an actual revision to RDA. In such cases, we will submit
revision proposals through the North American representative to the RSC. For example,
RBMS has submitted a proposal concerning referential relationships, in order to
accommodate bibliographic citations or references.
Review and revision of RDA’s guidelines concerning early printed resources
should take place with all stakeholders in mind. If it feels there is sufficient warrant, the
RSC may soon form a rare materials working group, composed of international
membership, as it has previously done for music and will soon do for archives.
Presumably, such a rare materials working group would limit the scope of its work to the
guidelines in RDA proper. Maintenance of RBMS Policy Statements will remain the
purview of RBMS -- in the immediate term, at least.
RDA consists of a set of guidelines and a formally defined element set.​​To fully
accommodate the description of rare materials, the task force is likely to propose a
modest number of extensions or refinements to the RDA element set. For example, we
may find it useful to articulate a separate data element for signature statements; at the
moment, such data is lumped with other notes on the extent of the manifestation.

8. 8
The RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee has charged a separate task force to
explore the issue of data elements for rare materials description. Our DCRM task force
is working with that group by suggesting data elements that we see as candidates for
addition to RDA.
Objectives of DCRM and the RBMS Policy Statements
The objectives of DCRM have remained consistent since their inception 35 years
ago. They will not change much in our forthcoming policy statements. DCRM shares the
general objectives of base standards such as AACR2 and RDA, and then adds objectives
that are important for users of special collections:
● Users must be able to distinguish clearly among different manifestations, and
among variations within a manifestation
● Users must be able to perform most identification and selection tasks without
direct access to the materials
● Users must be able to investigate the physical processes that produced the
material, as well as ​post-production​alterations
These user tasks will be explained in greater detail in Chapter 1 of the RBMS Policy
Statements.
To fulfill these objectives, a description of a resource requires:
● full and accurate transcriptions
● precise descriptions of the physical carrier, production processes, and
post-production manipulations of the resource
● detailed information on provenance and custodial history

9. 9
Fulfilling these objectives requires a modest number of significant differences between
DCRM and RDA. Let’s now look at some of those major variations.
The first significant difference concerns sources of information​. ​DCRM guidelines
place a strong emphasis on representing what appears on the preferred source of
information (which for rare materials, is usually a title page). In a DCRM description, it
is never appropriate to record title or statement of responsibility information that does
not appear in the preferred source. The notable exception is a devised title proper. For
edition statements and imprint statements, DCRM requires the cataloger to make a note
if information comes from anywhere besides the title page. RDA permits a much wider
array of sources of information. For some elements, RDA allows us to transcribe
information from anywhere within the resource, without making a note on the source.
The heavy DCRM emphasis on representation becomes less useful, perhaps, for
resources that are not self-describing, such as photographs, naturally found objects, and
manuscripts. For such material, RDA allows us to supply information within data
elements that are normally transcribed -- without an indication that the information is
absent from the resource. In a DCRM description, by contrast, all supplied information
within data elements that are normally transcribed must be recorded within square
brackets. DCRM also requires notes on the sources of supplied information.
A second significant difference concerns​​interpolations and corrections​.​DCRM
and RDA deal with misprints quite differently. As with AACR2, DCRM guidelines say to
follow an inaccuracy “either by ‘[sic]’ or by the abbreviation ‘i.e.’ and the correction
within square brackets.” In RDA, the misprint is not corrected or acknowledged within
the transcribed element itself. The cataloger does ​not​insert an interpolation. Instead,
corrections can me made in related notes. If the misprint affects title information, the
cataloger makes a variant title for the corrected form.

10. 10
RDA DCRM
by John L. Dalderston by John L. Dalderston [i.e. Balderston]
In older material, such inaccuracies and variant spellings occur more frequently.
The task force is currently divided on whether our users are better served by the RDA
approach or the existing DCRM approach. Both attempt to serve the principle of
representation. In DCRM, the “[sic]” or “[i.e.]” introduces an interpolation -- which is
generally undesirable -- but it serves to say to the user: this is really how the information
appears on the source. RDA’s approach succeeds in leaving the transcribed text free of
interpolations; but for users to be certain that the inaccuracy is not the fault of the
cataloger, they must locate related information in a separate data element, and such
data may not be prominent.
Now let’s look briefly at the matter of transposition​.​In DCRM, there are
numerous guidelines that instruct the cataloger to make a note on transposition when
information on the title page appears in an order that differs from the norm (which is to
say, in ISBD order). RDA is mostly indifferent to the order of data elements, so the
concept of transposition is almost entirely absent (and completely so for attributes
concerning Manifestations and Items). That said, making notes on transposition does
not violate any RDA principles.
Of course we can’t highlight differences between RDA and DCRM without talking
about pagination and foliation statements. One of the most controversial changes
introduced by RDA is the new form of syntax for recording extent in resources issued as
volumes. RDA has abandoned the system of using square brackets to record

11. 11
unnumbered pages, etc. Instead, RDA uses a verbose system for making distinctions
between numbered and unnumbered pages.
RDA DCRM
12 unnumbered pages, 275 pages, 1
unnumbered page, 1 unnumbered leaf of
plates, XII leaves of plates
[12], 275, [1] p., [1], XII leaves of plates
The DCRM Task Force is confident that the earlier practice, which is also used
internationally by bibliographers and the antiquarian book trade, better serves the
needs of our community -- that is, for those who require such information to identify a
resource.
For the current JSC meeting, ALA has presented a discussion paper proposing a
major change in RDA’s treatment of extent. It includes a proposal to treat pagination
and foliation differently than true measures of extent. If this change is adopted by RDA,
pagination and foliation statements would be more clearly defined in terms of how the
resource represents itself (rather than a true count of the pages/leaves in a volume).
Such a change ​might ​allow RDA a principled justification for reverting to the earlier
system of syntax for recording pagination statements.
The final major difference we’d like to highlight concerns the issue of
transcription. In many respects, RDA and DCRM principles for transcription are
similar. In both, letters are generally transcribed as they appear, capitalization is
normalized, and abbreviations are used only if found on the source. DCRM, however,
provides much finer guidance on issues commonly found with rare materials, such as
normalization of early letterforms (especially I/J and U/V), and treatment of symbols
and spacing.

12. 12
RDA DCRM
Printed & sold by J​:​Preston
Les oe​vv​res morales de Pl​v​tarq​v​e
Printed & sold by J​. ​Preston
Les oe​uu​res morales de Pl​u​tarq​u​e
Guidelines for transcription of punctuation have proven tricky. The general
feeling is that RDA’s guidelines on transcription of punctuation are inconsistently
principled. When the RDA guidelines are applied and combined with ISBD punctuation
-- as is still common -- punctuation in transcribed elements serves as an unreliable aid
to representation of the resource. The draft of the RBMS Policy Statements permits
normalization of punctuation, as needed; this approach is in the spirit of the current
proposal put forward by the Canadian Committee on Cataloguing.
Two example descriptions
In many ways, DCRM aligns more closely with RDA than with AACR2,
particularly in transcription. We’ll now show descriptions of two resources -- one book
and one photograph -- in order to highlight both similarities and differences in RDA and
DCRM applied in combination with AACR2.

13. 13
Our first example is King James I’s ​Daemonologie,​first published in 1597. Here
is its title page:
Folger STC 14364 Copy 1. ​Used by permission of the Folger Shakespeare Library under a ​Creative Commons
Attribution­ShareAlike 4.0 International License​.
The first notable difference between RDA and DCRM descriptions concerns the
statement of responsibility.
RDA DCRM(B) applied with AACR2
245 10 Daemonolo​-​gie : ǂb in forme of a
dialogue : diuided into three bookes ​/ ǂc
Iames Rx.
Daemonologie : ǂb in forme of a
dialogue : diuided into three bookes.
500 __ "To the reader" signed, p. 9: ​Iames Rx.​,
i.e. James I.
In the view of DCRM, this resource lacks a statement of responsibility, because
this information does not appear on the title page. RDA permits us to take the statement
of responsibility from anywhere within the book. Because of this, “Iames Rx.” can be
recorded here; in the DCRM description, the information is recorded in a note.
Additionally, RDA would have us transcribe the hyphen indicating the line-break
in “Daemonologie.” DCRM, though, states in rule 0G4.1, “If a word is divided between

14. 14
the end of one line and the beginning of the next, transcribe it as a single word, ignoring
the line-break.”
Next, let’s look at descriptions of the imprint.
RDA DCRM(B) applied with AACR2
264 _1 Edinb​v​rgh : ǂb Printed by Robert
Walde-graue printer to the Kings
Majestie, ǂc an. 1597.
Edinb​u​rgh : ǂb Printed by Robert
Walde-graue, printer to the Kings
Majestie, ǂc an. 1597.
Again, we encounter a difference in transcription conventions. In converting the
“V” of “EDINBVRGH” to lowercase, DCRM instructs us to follow the pattern of usage in
the text, in which the letterform “u” is used in this context. RDA, however, has us
convert the uppercase “V” to a lowercase “v”.
Finally, let’s compare the physical descriptions.
RDA DCRM(B) applied with AACR2
300 __ 10 unnumbered pages, 81 pages, 1
unnumbered page ; ǂc 18 cm (4to)
[10], 81, [1] p.​​; ǂc 18 cm (4to)
In the RDA description, we’ve applied the exception for Early Printed Resources,
so that all sequences of pagination are accounted for. However, the syntax for recording
the pagination is quite different from that in the DCRM description.
Our second example is a photograph of Abraham Lincoln, from the collections of
the Library of Congress. Our DCRM description will use the manual for ​Graphics.

15. 15
Butler, Preston, photographer. “[Abraham Lincoln, candidate for U.S. president. Half­length portrait, seated, facing
front.]” Photograph. Springfield, Ill.: s.n., 1860. From Library of Congress: ​Miscellaneous Items in High Demand​.
http://lccn.loc.gov/2007686613 (accessed November 17, 2015).
As you can see, the photograph bears no text, so all information in the
transcribed elements is devised by the cataloger or supplied from reference sources.
RDA DCRM(G) applied with AACR2
245 10 Half-length portrait of Abraham
Lincoln, seated, facing front / ǂc by
Preston Butler.
[Half-length portrait of Abraham
Lincoln, seated, facing front] ǂh
[graphic]
264 _0 Springfield, Illinois, ǂc 1860 August 13. [Springfield, Ill.], ǂc [13 August 1860]
In RDA, the cataloger does not indicate that information is supplied if the
resource is “of a type that does not normally carry identifying information” (see RDA
2.2.4). In the DCRM description, we are required to indicate that the information is
supplied, by use of square brackets. Here, the RDA approach is arguably more in tune
with the practice of the art and archival cataloging communities. The RBMS Policy
Statements may wish to find a compromise, keeping a requirement that supplied
information is flagged as such, but perhaps abandoning the use of square brackets in
this context.

16. 16
Several aspects of the DCRM(G) description -- namely the abbreviation for
Illinois, the prescribed order for the detailed date, and, most notably, the GMD -- will
not be carried forward in a description based on the RBMS Policy Statements.
RDA DCRM(G) applied with AACR2
500 __ Title devised by library staff.
500 __ Photographed by Preston Butler. See:
Ostendorf.
500 __ Place and date of production from
Ostendorf and Meserve.
DCRM insists that all supplied information is justified by a note. In the context of
this example, RDA does not.
RDA DCRM(G) applied with AACR2
300 __ 1 photograph : ǂb approximate
half-plate ambrotype ; ǂc ​14 x 11 cm
1 photograph : ǂb approximate
half-plate ambrotype ; ǂc ​visible image
14 x 11 cm, in frame 21 x 18 cm
RDA provides relatively good guidance for describing the physical aspects of still
image resources. As shown in the description of dimensions, however, there are areas
where RDA’s guidelines will benefit from expansion. RDA instructs to record only the
pictorial area of the image. DCRM(G) provides detailed guidelines for recording the
dimensions of the visible image and the dimensions of the frame.
The Benefits of DCRM in Cataloging Workflows
As we noted earlier, a description conforming to DCRM ought to better fulfill the
needs of special collections researchers. The usefulness of a DCRM description is
amplified in the context of cooperative cataloging.

17. 17
In current practice, records described according to DCRM are coded as such in
the MARC field for descriptive conventions (in MARC field 040, subfield e).
040 __ ǂa CtY-BA ǂb eng ǂe rda ​ǂe dcrmb​ǂc CtY-BA
For “copy cataloging” of rare materials, a DCRM description is usually the
preferred point of departure, when it is available. For libraries that have workflows that
are closely tied to OCLC’s WorldCat database, there is an added advantage, since OCLC
excludes DCRM-encoded records from its automatic “deduping” procedures. This helps
to ensure that variant manifestations are not mistakenly merged in OCLC.
For these reasons, we expect that descriptions made in accordance with our
forthcoming policy statements will also be flagged with a code in the descriptive
conventions field. When resource descriptions evolve from flat MARC records to a
network of linked entities, our policy statement stamp will presumably apply to the
entities in the graph concerning Manifestations and Items.
If our community -- in the international sense -- is ever so bold as to implement
the concept of cooperative cataloging to its fullest, a common standard for rare
materials cataloging will be an essential tool. In the FRBR model, only the copy-specific
Item is unique to our respective collections. We should treat Manifestations with the

18. 18
same mindset and principles that we apply when we create authority records for
Expressions and Works; which is to say: a common Manifestation description should be
maintained by the community.
We hope that our community will soon reevaluate the merits of maintaining our
local catalogs​​as catalogs of record for Manifestation descriptions -- a practice that
nearly all of us currently engage in. If, however, we hope to adopt a new model -- one in
which a library’s catalog of Items links out to external descriptions of Manifestations
(maintained by the community) -- we will need assurance that those Manifestations to
which we link are appropriately described. We believe that an internationally accepted
content standard for rare materials, perhaps an outgrowth of our present work, could
fulfill this role.
Next Steps
Our goal is to complete an initial version of the RBMS Policy Statements by 2017.
At that point, our work will be reviewed by the RBMS Bibliographic Standards
Committee and by the American Library Association’s Committee on Cataloging:
Description and Access. We will solicit review from ​format specialist communities, such
as the Music Library Association (MLA), the Map and Geospatial Information Round
Table (MAGIRT), and the Cooperative Serials Program of the PCC (CONSER). We hope
that we may also count on input from the international community of rare materials
catalogers, including those of you here today. ​There will also be a degree of review by the
RSC, to ensure that the guidelines are in harmony with the principles of RDA.
Our task force will be disbanded after it publishes the first version of the RBMS
Policy Statements. At that time, the guidelines will be maintained and enhanced by the
RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee. Alternatively, now may be an apt moment to

19. 19
explore the benefits of broader international collaboration in development of cataloging
guidelines for rare materials. Working together on a common standard may present
logistical challenges -- not least of which, the need for multilingual implementation --
but the benefits are potentially immense. Our course of action should be made with
users in mind. Researchers today may now easily consult online catalogs across the
world; we render a service to such users when we describe an item in a consistent
manner. If consistency is a worthwhile goal, then perhaps we should aim to have a
standard for rare materials description that is at least as widely adopted as RDA itself.