Appendix A - Society of American Archivists

Rules for HistoricalSummary (9.18-9.29)Table C3, p. 225-226bibliographic principle ofdisambiguation here, I think it isa mistake to do so. You reallyneed to capture the spirit of rule12.18 in DACS 2004 here, sincethat was one rule that was uniqueto archival content standards anddid not come from AACR2.Without pouring over them indetail, these seem very differentto me than the rules in 2.7, andthe examples are very differentas well. I'm not sure I understandwhy, if as you claim this part ofChapter 9 and Chapter 2.7provide different ways of doingthe same thing 1) in thedescription or 2) in a separateauthority system, there's anydifference at all in the rules or theexamples in terms of datacontent? Maybe having muchmore similarity would reinforcethe common nature of the activityof describing creators, regardlessof whether the description endsup in a finding aid or an authorityrecord. In fact, you'd do everyonea real service in terms ofcomprehension of what's goingon if you explicitly crosswalkedthe rules in chapter 2.6 and 2.7 tothe relevant parts of chapter 9!You'll redo the crosswalkbetween ISAAR(CPF) AND DACS2013, right? And perhaps add in acrosswalk to EAD-CPF? And someof the other DACS 2004crosswalks where the DACSnumbering has changed in DACS2013?Commentdiscussed;Committee felt therules are clear andusable as writtenChanges madeAction: DACS Revision Page 93 of 158 0113-II-A-DACS