Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update Example in DACS 6.2.3 #28

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

matthewgorham
Copy link
Contributor

@matthewgorham matthewgorham commented Nov 1, 2019

Closes #15

Change request submitted by Matthew Gorham based on issue #15

Proposed change

  • Update the last example in 6.2.3 to clarify that it describes the existence of a copy of the material being described that is available for use at the same institution, per the general rules of 6.2.3.

Justification for proposed change

  • The examples used in elements 6.2.3 and 6.4.4 both include an example of a published, annotated version of archival materials, yet it is unclear whether an annotated publication should be described only using 6.4.4 or if it can be described using 6.2.3 as well. This revision will clarify that an annotated publication (or any other published version of archival material) should only be described using 6.2.3 if the material being described is a copy of original archival material held by the same institution and is available for use at that institution.

Impact of proposed change

  • This change will clarify when it is appropriate to describe a publication using element 6.2, and when it is appropriate to do so using element 6.4.

@matthewgorham matthewgorham changed the title Update Publication Example in DACS 6.2.3 Update Example in DACS 6.2.3 Nov 1, 2019
@KateBowersHarvard
Copy link

I'm just confused about what is being proposed. Which if any of the following is the intention of the proposal?

  • The fact that a published reproduction (or full transcript) of the archival resource is available should be noted is to be part of the instruction in 6.2?
  • The fact that a published reproduction (or full transcript) of the archival resource is available should be noted is to be part of the instruction in 6.4?
  • Since a full-text published version of the archival resource that is also annotated is both a "copy" and "a publication that is about or is based on" the resource consider this note to be applicable to 6.2?
  • Since a full-text published version of the archival resource that is also annotated is both a "copy" and "a publication that is about or is based on" the resource consider this note to be applicable to 6.4?

Thanks!

Kate

@milesnimer
Copy link
Contributor

Reviewing the examples in 6.2.3, many of them are not particularly clear that they are referring to copies of items at the same repository. If there is interest in clarifying the example text for this element then all of these should probably be reviewed/updated. This might include the addition of more structured examples, as well as the current unstructured text.

@katyrawdon
Copy link
Contributor

This PR has been determined by TS-DACS to be a part of a potential larger revision of Chapter 6, so we're tabling it for now. We may come back to it either as a part of that larger revision, or as an individual PR if the larger revision cannot be completed in a timely(ish) manner.

@regineheberlein
Copy link
Contributor

Looking at the actual change (see Files changed tab), this particular update clarifies a single example by adding the phrase "A physical copy of the publication is available for checkout at the Harold B. Lee Library (Call Number F 594 .D85 1969)". It goes towards clarifying the usage of 6.2.3 v. 6.4.4.

Accepting this change now is a first step; a more comprehensive examples review remains pending in #67.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: Awaiting Approval from Standards
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Unclear examples for 6.2 and 6.4
5 participants