<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:p="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:a="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:access" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:s="uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" xmlns:rs="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:rowset" xmlns:z="#RowsetSchema" xmlns:b="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:publisher" xmlns:ss="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadsheet" xmlns:c="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" xmlns:odc="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:odc" xmlns:oa="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:activation" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:q="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:rtc="http://microsoft.com/officenet/conferencing" xmlns:D="DAV:" xmlns:Repl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/repl/" xmlns:mt="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/meetings/" xmlns:x2="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel/2003/xml" xmlns:ppda="http://www.passport.com/NameSpace.xsd" xmlns:ois="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" xmlns:dir="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:dsp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/dsp" xmlns:udc="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:sub="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/2002/1/alerts/" xmlns:ec="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#" xmlns:sp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/" xmlns:sps="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:udcs="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/soap" xmlns:udcxf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" xmlns:udcp2p="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/parttopart" xmlns:wf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/workflow/" xmlns:dsss="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig-setup" xmlns:dssi="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig" xmlns:mdssi="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/digital-signature" xmlns:mver="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns:mrels="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships" xmlns:spwp="http://microsoft.com/sharepoint/webpartpages" xmlns:ex12t="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/types" xmlns:ex12m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/messages" xmlns:pptsl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/SlideLibrary/" xmlns:spsl="http://microsoft.com/webservices/SharePointPortalServer/PublishedLinksService" xmlns:Z="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" xmlns:st="" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>I
don't remember much discussion on where to put the name of a dedicatee if it's
going to be traced. I've seen it only in the 700 with a relator term or code. I
can't think of any serious justification for considering the dedicatee a
subject of the work. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>I
just looked up what MARC 21 says about the field.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>70X-75X: Added entries that provide additional access to
a bibliographic record from names and/or titles having <span style='background:
yellow;mso-highlight:yellow'>various relationships to a work</span>. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>700: Added entries are assigned according to various cataloging
rules to give access to the bibliographic record from personal name headings
which <span style='background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow'>may not be more
appropriately assigned as 600</span> (Subject Added Entry-Personal Name) or 800
(Series Added Entry-Personal Name) fields. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>These
two together confirm that field 700 is the appropriate place. Dedicatees have a
relationship with the work, which qualifies it for a 700, and the 700 is also
the catch-all field for personal names that are not a subject or a series. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>__________________________</span>
<br>
<span style='font-size:9.0pt'>Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. <br>
RBMS Chair 2009-2010 | Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare Library <br>
201 East Capitol St., S.E. | Washington, D.C. 20003 | 202.675-0369 <br>
djleslie@folger.edu | <a href="http://www.folger.edu/"><span style='color:blue'>http://www.folger.edu</span></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>-----Original Message-----<br>
From: dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu] On Behalf
Of Schupbach ,William<br>
Sent: Tuesday, 15 September, 2009 15:08<br>
To: dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu<br>
Subject: [DCRM-L] Patrons and dedicatees?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>I have a similar question to the one about
prospectuses. Where in<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>MARC21 should patrons and dedicatees go, when they are
entered at all? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>In the Wellcome Library catalogue they have sometimes
been put in 700<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>when the cataloguer gets the impression that the
patron/dedicatee had<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>some "responsibility" for, or made a "contribution"
to the creation or<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>publication of the work, or "had a relationship
to" (AACR2 21.30F1) the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>work. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>However they have sometimes been put in 600, on the
ground that all the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>cataloguer knows about their role in the work is that
they are mentioned<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>in the work and are therefore one of the subjects treated
in it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>AACR2 21.30F1 (cited above) says "make an added
entry" for related<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>persons etc., and one might interpret that as 700, on the
ground that<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>AACR2 does not deal with subject added entries. Conversely,
that fact<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>that it does not deal with subject added entries at all
might be thought<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>to disqualify it from influencing the choice. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>I have seen some records in other catalogues in which
they have been<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>entered twice, both as 600 and as 700, but have thought
(like Deborah J.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Leslie with the prospectuses) that that might make them
over-prominent<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>in the record, compared with e.g. the author.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Can anyone kindly point me to any discussions or
decisions? This<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>question must surely have arisen before.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>William Schupbach <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Wellcome Library, 183 Euston Road, London NW1 2BE <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>E-mail: w.schupbach@wellcome.ac.uk <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Visit the Wellcome Library Blog at:
http://wellcomelibrary.blogspot.com<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>-----Original Message-----<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>From: dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu
[mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu] On<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Behalf Of dcrm-l-request@lib.byu.edu<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Sent: 15 September 2009 19:00<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>To: dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Subject: DCRM-L Digest, Vol 43, Issue 12<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Send DCRM-L mailing list submissions to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText> dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText> https://listserver.lib.byu.edu/mailman/listinfo/dcrm-l<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help'
to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText> dcrm-l-request@lib.byu.edu<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>You can reach the person managing the list at<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText> dcrm-l-owner@lib.byu.edu<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is
more specific<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>than "Re: Contents of DCRM-L digest..."<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Today's Topics:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText> 1. Re: prospectuses (Deborah J. Leslie)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText> 2. Re: prospectuses (Manon Theroux)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>----------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Message: 1<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 12:22:25 -0400<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>From: "Deborah J. Leslie"
<DJLeslie@FOLGER.edu><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] prospectuses<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>To: "DCRM Revision Group List"
<dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Message-ID:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText> <8160A9CA17FEBC488A19E00F367FFEDF0DEA9EA9@ARIEL.folger.edu><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>I, too, am persuaded that both 6xx and 7xx entries are
optimal for<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>prospectuses. Since I gave the justification for same in
my first email,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>I went back and considered why I thought it
"overkill" to do. If my<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>memory isn't totally misleading me, it has to do with
some very early<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>systems that were extremely clumsy about the indexing of
names as<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>subjects. I added both fields to my record, searched it
every which way,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>and could find nothing in the results to object to. It
seems I've been<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>carrying an unexamined bias against
"duplicated" 6xx's and 7xx's for a<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>long time. Not that I think they should be duplicated
indiscriminately,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>but clearly it's not appropriate to avoid duplication at
all costs,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>which I've been very nearly prepared to do. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Thanks all for this discussion. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>From: dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu
[mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu] On<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Behalf Of John Lancaster<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Sent: Tuesday, 15 September, 2009 11:05<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>To: DCRM Revision Group List<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] prospectuses<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>The key issue is that a prospectus has more than just a
subject<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>relationship to the work it advertises. It is
linked to the production<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>of a specific edition (a concordance or separately
published index,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>similarly, is linked to a specific edition of a
work). (The<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>"correspondence" example is not about making a
7xx for the writer of the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>letter, but for the recipient.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>With regard to a book advertised: If I find an ad
for a book in an<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>18th-century newspaper, and I want to find the book, I
won't look under<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>subject, but under title or author/title. Even if
the book were never<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>published, it would be useful to me to find a prospectus
(maybe<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>especially if the book were never published).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>In short, I don't see any reason not to make a 7xx entry,
regardless of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>whether a prospectus is exactly like any other sort of
related work - it<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>costs almost nothing (a quick cut-and-paste from the
6xx), is certainly<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>justified even if not required, and can be helpful,
especially to the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>readers most of us are likely to serve - i.e., those who
are interested<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>not only in the text but also in the artifact.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>--<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>John Lancaster (jlancaster@amherst.edu)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>P.O. Box 775<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Williamsburg, Mass. 01096<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>413-268-7679<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>-------------- next part --------------<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>URL:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20090915/e249<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>8b88/attachment-0001.htm <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>------------------------------<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Message: 2<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:26:10 -0400<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>From: Manon Theroux <manon.theroux@gmail.com><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] prospectuses<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>To: DCRM Revision Group List <dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Message-ID:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText> <c616584d0909151026j467b9c18me65b9aa6ccf4429c@mail.gmail.com><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Once upon a time, didn't RLIN index names in 6xx fields
as both<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>subjects and names? That would have made the addition of
the names in<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>7xx fields seem superfluous. Maybe some dim memory of
that system<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>contributed to the lingering bias...<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>-Manon<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Deborah J. Leslie<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><DJLeslie@folger.edu> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> I, too, am persuaded that both 6xx and 7xx entries
are optimal for<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> prospectuses. Since I gave the justification for
same in my first<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>email, I<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> went back and considered why I thought it
"overkill" to do. If my<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>memory<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> isn't totally misleading me, it has to do with some
very early systems<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>that<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> were extremely clumsy about the indexing of names as
subjects. I added<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>both<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> fields to my record, searched it every which way,
and could find<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>nothing in<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> the results to object to. It seems I've been
carrying an unexamined<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>bias<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> against "duplicated" 6xx's and 7xx's for a
long time. Not that I think<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>they<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> should be duplicated indiscriminately, but clearly
it's not<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>appropriate to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> avoid duplication at all costs, which I've been very
nearly prepared<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>to do.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> Thanks all for this discussion.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> From: dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu
[mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu]<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>On<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> Behalf Of John Lancaster<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> Sent: Tuesday, 15 September, 2009 11:05<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> To: DCRM Revision Group List<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] prospectuses<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> The key issue is that a prospectus has more than
just a subject<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>relationship<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> to the work it advertises.? It is linked to the
production of a<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>specific<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> edition (a concordance or separately published
index, similarly, is<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>linked<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> to a specific edition of a work).? (The
"correspondence" example is<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>not<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> about making a 7xx for the writer of the letter, but
for the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>recipient.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> With regard to a book advertised:? If I find an ad
for a book in an<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> 18th-century newspaper, and I want to find the book,
I won't look<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>under<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> subject, but under title or author/title.? Even if
the book were never<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> published, it would be useful to me to find a
prospectus (maybe<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>especially<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> if the book were never published).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> In short, I don't see any reason not to make a 7xx
entry, regardless<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> of?whether a prospectus is exactly like any other
sort of related<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>work?- it<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> costs almost nothing (a quick cut-and-paste from the
6xx), is<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>certainly<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> justified even if not required, and can be helpful,
especially to the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> readers most of us are likely to serve - i.e., those
who are<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>interested not<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> only in the text but also in the artifact.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> --<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> John Lancaster (jlancaster@amherst.edu)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> P.O. Box 775<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> Williamsburg, Mass. 01096<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>> 413-268-7679<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>End of DCRM-L Digest, Vol 43, Issue 12<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>**************************************<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>This message has been scanned for viruses by BlackSpider
MailControl - www.blackspider.com<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>