[DCRM-L] Patrons and dedicatees?

Tue Sep 15 13:07:48 MDT 2009

I have a similar question to the one about prospectuses.  Where in
MARC21 should patrons and dedicatees go, when they are entered at all?  

In the Wellcome Library catalogue they have sometimes been put in 700
when the cataloguer gets the impression that the patron/dedicatee had
some "responsibility" for, or made a "contribution" to the creation or
publication of the work, or "had a relationship to" (AACR2 21.30F1) the
work. 

However they have sometimes been put in 600, on the ground that all the
cataloguer knows about their role in the work is that they are mentioned
in the work and are therefore one of the subjects treated in it.

AACR2 21.30F1 (cited above) says "make an added entry" for related
persons etc., and one might interpret that as 700, on the ground that
AACR2 does not deal with subject added entries. Conversely, that fact
that it does not deal with subject added entries at all might be thought
to disqualify it from influencing the choice. 

I have seen some records in other catalogues in which they have been
entered twice, both as 600 and as 700, but have thought (like Deborah J.
Leslie with the prospectuses) that that might make them over-prominent
in the record, compared with e.g. the author.

Can anyone kindly point me to any discussions or decisions? This
question must surely have arisen before.

William Schupbach 
Wellcome Library, 183 Euston Road, London NW1 2BE 
E-mail: w.schupbach at wellcome.ac.uk 

Visit the Wellcome Library Blog at: http://wellcomelibrary.blogspot.com

-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of dcrm-l-request at lib.byu.edu
Sent: 15 September 2009 19:00
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: DCRM-L Digest, Vol 43, Issue 12

Send DCRM-L mailing list submissions to
	dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://listserver.lib.byu.edu/mailman/listinfo/dcrm-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	dcrm-l-request at lib.byu.edu

You can reach the person managing the list at
	dcrm-l-owner at lib.byu.edu

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of DCRM-L digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: prospectuses (Deborah J. Leslie)
   2. Re: prospectuses (Manon Theroux)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 12:22:25 -0400
From: "Deborah J. Leslie" <DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] prospectuses
To: "DCRM Revision Group List" <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Message-ID:
	<8160A9CA17FEBC488A19E00F367FFEDF0DEA9EA9 at ARIEL.folger.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I, too, am persuaded that both 6xx and 7xx entries are optimal for
prospectuses. Since I gave the justification for same in my first email,
I went back and considered why I thought it "overkill" to do. If my
memory isn't totally misleading me, it has to do with some very early
systems that were extremely clumsy about the indexing of names as
subjects. I added both fields to my record, searched it every which way,
and could find nothing in the results to object to. It seems I've been
carrying an unexamined bias against "duplicated" 6xx's and 7xx's for a
long time. Not that I think they should be duplicated indiscriminately,
but clearly it's not appropriate to avoid duplication at all costs,
which I've been very nearly prepared to do. 

Thanks all for this discussion. 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of John Lancaster
Sent: Tuesday, 15 September, 2009 11:05
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] prospectuses

The key issue is that a prospectus has more than just a subject
relationship to the work it advertises.  It is linked to the production
of a specific edition (a concordance or separately published index,
similarly, is linked to a specific edition of a work).  (The
"correspondence" example is not about making a 7xx for the writer of the
letter, but for the recipient.)

With regard to a book advertised:  If I find an ad for a book in an
18th-century newspaper, and I want to find the book, I won't look under
subject, but under title or author/title.  Even if the book were never
published, it would be useful to me to find a prospectus (maybe
especially if the book were never published).

In short, I don't see any reason not to make a 7xx entry, regardless of
whether a prospectus is exactly like any other sort of related work - it
costs almost nothing (a quick cut-and-paste from the 6xx), is certainly
justified even if not required, and can be helpful, especially to the
readers most of us are likely to serve - i.e., those who are interested
not only in the text but also in the artifact.

--
John Lancaster (jlancaster at amherst.edu)
P.O. Box 775

Williamsburg, Mass. 01096

413-268-7679

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20090915/e249
8b88/attachment-0001.htm 

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:26:10 -0400
From: Manon Theroux <manon.theroux at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] prospectuses
To: DCRM Revision Group List <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Message-ID:
	<c616584d0909151026j467b9c18me65b9aa6ccf4429c at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Once upon a time, didn't RLIN index names in 6xx fields as both
subjects and names? That would have made the addition of the names in
7xx fields seem superfluous. Maybe some dim memory of that system
contributed to the lingering bias...

-Manon

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Deborah J. Leslie
<DJLeslie at folger.edu> wrote:
> I, too, am persuaded that both 6xx and 7xx entries are optimal for
> prospectuses. Since I gave the justification for same in my first
email, I
> went back and considered why I thought it "overkill" to do. If my
memory
> isn't totally misleading me, it has to do with some very early systems
that
> were extremely clumsy about the indexing of names as subjects. I added
both
> fields to my record, searched it every which way, and could find
nothing in
> the results to object to. It seems I've been carrying an unexamined
bias
> against "duplicated" 6xx's and 7xx's for a long time. Not that I think
they
> should be duplicated indiscriminately, but clearly it's not
appropriate to
> avoid duplication at all costs, which I've been very nearly prepared
to do.
>
>
>
> Thanks all for this discussion.
>
>
>
> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu]
On
> Behalf Of John Lancaster
> Sent: Tuesday, 15 September, 2009 11:05
> To: DCRM Revision Group List
> Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] prospectuses
>
>
>
> The key issue is that a prospectus has more than just a subject
relationship
> to the work it advertises.? It is linked to the production of a
specific
> edition (a concordance or separately published index, similarly, is
linked
> to a specific edition of a work).? (The "correspondence" example is
not
> about making a 7xx for the writer of the letter, but for the
recipient.)
>
>
>
> With regard to a book advertised:? If I find an ad for a book in an
> 18th-century newspaper, and I want to find the book, I won't look
under
> subject, but under title or author/title.? Even if the book were never
> published, it would be useful to me to find a prospectus (maybe
especially
> if the book were never published).
>
>
>
> In short, I don't see any reason not to make a 7xx entry, regardless
> of?whether a prospectus is exactly like any other sort of related
work?- it
> costs almost nothing (a quick cut-and-paste from the 6xx), is
certainly
> justified even if not required, and can be helpful, especially to the
> readers most of us are likely to serve - i.e., those who are
interested not
> only in the text but also in the artifact.
>
>
>
> --
> John Lancaster (jlancaster at amherst.edu)
> P.O. Box 775
>
> Williamsburg, Mass. 01096
>
> 413-268-7679

End of DCRM-L Digest, Vol 43, Issue 12
**************************************

This message has been scanned for viruses by BlackSpider MailControl - www.blackspider.com