<html>
<body>
I've made the distinction between these two types of notes for many years
and, obviously, I agree with Randy's assessment that changing the note as
has been suggested would imply that the phrase itself appeared over a
span of pages.<font size=3> <br><br>
</font>I've included snippets from various cataloging standards and
guidelines below, in the hopes that it will help to resolve the issue
(which I never imagined would be so controversial!)<br><br>
-Manon<br><br>
====================================<br>
CONTENTS NOTES:<br><br>
MARC21, under 505$a:<br>
500 ## $a"Table of statutes and regulations": p. xvii-xxv.<br>
[Unformatted content note recorded in field 500.]<br><br>
MARC21, under 504$a:<br>
<a name="0-0-0-22401"></a>504 ## $a"Selected bibliography": v.
1, p. 351-358, v. 2, p<a name="0-0-0-22401"></a>. 234-236.<br><br>
LCRI 2.7B18. "Contents":<br>
500 ## $a "Life cycle of the liver fluke": leaves 75-89.<br>
500 ## $a "Types of prayer wheels found in south central Tibet, by
Mei Lin": p. [310]-[375].<br><br>
DCRB, 7C16 "Contents":<br>
"List of the author's unpublished poems": p. 151-158 <br><br>
<font size=3>Finally, in the book "Notes in the catalog record"
by Jerry Saye and Sherry Vellucci, see the *many* examples in the two
sections on the use of quoted titles in informal contents notes (p. 398
and p. 400). <br><br>
========================================<br>
QUOTATION NOTES:<br><br>
MARC21, under 500$a:<br>
500 ## $a"The first American Jewish weekly of its kind"--The
Jewish encyclopedia, v. 8. <br><br>
AACR2, 1.7 "Quotations":<br>
<a name="0-0-0-2765"></a>“A textbook for 6th form students”–Pref.<br>
“Generally considered to be by William Langland”–Oxford companion to
English literature<br><br>
DCRB, 7B3 Form of notes, "Quotations"<br>
"Generally considered to be by William Langland"--Harvey, P.
Oxford companion to Engl. lit.<br>
<a name="0-0-0-1773"></a>"The principal additional music, contained
in 72 pages, may be had, half bound, with or without the rules, price
four shillings and
ninepence"--Pref<a name="0-0-0-1773"></a>.<br><br>
Many other examples are scattered throughout various rules....<br><br>
========================================<br><br>
At 01:36 PM 9/20/2006, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">No, I confess that I do not get
the same inference from the format of<br>
"Preface to the first edition"--P. 5-7 as does Randy. As far as
I'm<br>
aware, I've always treated words within quotation marks the same,<br>
whether they're quoting the location of a string of words or
indicating<br>
the location of a section by its title. <br>
______________________________________________________<br>
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.<br>
Chair, RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee<br>
Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare Library<br>
201 East Capitol St., S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003<br>
djleslie@folger.edu | 202.675-0369 |
<a href="http://www.folger.edu" eudora="autourl">http://www.folger.edu</a>
<br><br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu
[<a href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu" eudora="autourl">
mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</a>] On<br>
Behalf Of Will Evans<br>
Sent: Wednesday, 20 September, 2006 13:01<br>
To: 'DCRM Revision Group List'<br>
Subject: [DCRM-L] Quoted notes was Area 2 comments<br><br>
Mr. Brandt wrote:<br><br>
"Preface to the first edition"--P. 5-7. (and, yes, you
would have <br>
to capitalize the "P.")<br><br>
This implies, to me, that the phrase "Preface to the first
edition"<br>
spans <br>
pages 5 through 7, which is obviously absurd. <br><br>
<br>
Does the format of the above quoted note have the same implication
to<br>
the<br>
rest of the RBMS community as it does to Mr. Brandt? I'm afraid I
use<br>
this<br>
format all the time. To me it implies text with the title "Preface
to<br>
the<br>
first edition" can be found on p. 5-7. Is this wrong?<br><br>
Thanks in advance,<br><br>
Will.</font></blockquote></body>
</html>