<div dir="ltr">Rest assured, others in the community feel the same! <div><br></div><div>DCRM(Manuscripts) avoids holograph altogether, other than a cross-reference to "autograph" in the glossary and table of contents.<div><br></div><div>See DCRM(MSS) 1D1. Material type (physical, creative, and intellectual status of manuscript) and 1D2. Method of production for permission to use "manuscript" the way you want to, and acknowledgement that autograph status and method of production are two different things. Available as a free download at <a href="http://rbms.info/dcrm/dcrmmss/">http://rbms.info/dcrm/dcrmmss/</a></div><div><br></div><div>Best wishes,</div><div><br></div><div>Erin</div><div> <br></div><div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><font color="#000000">----------------<br>
Erin C. Blake, Ph.D. | Head of Collection Information
Services | Folger Shakespeare Library | 201 E.
Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC, 20003 | eblake@folger.edu
| office tel. +1 202-675-0323 | fax +1 202-675-0328
| www.folger.edu</font></span></a></p></div><div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 2:09 PM Andrews, Susan <<a href="mailto:susan.andrews@ubc.ca">susan.andrews@ubc.ca</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<font face="Calibri" size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt">
<div>Hi everyone,</div>
<div> Am I the only one in the rare book cataloguing community who has a problem with the term "holograph"?</div>
<div>I can see the term's use in specialized databases and institutions dealing with manuscripts all day long exclusively, but as a cataloguer who catalogues a few manuscript books a year, and puts my records into a big database of millions of records for mostly
published material, I have trouble with this term.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>RDA 3.9.1.3 "Recording Production Method" gives good user-friendly terms for most methods of production, but has a big Exception for manuscripts.</div>
<div> Anything "handwritten by the person or persons responsible for the work or works" must use the term "holograph"</div>
<div> Other handwritten items use the term "manuscript".</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Both our staff and our users are usually completely unfamiliar with the term "holograph".</div>
<div> </div>
<div>To me it is illogical that a <b><i>method of production</i></b> be tied to who is doing the producing. Why do we need two terms? Isn't "manuscript" good enough? Can’t the rest of the description and the relationship designators fill the need to convey
who did the handwriting?</div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman"> </font></div>
<div>I must be missing something here, so please enlighten me!</div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman"> </font></div>
<div>Sue.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2"><span style="font-size:9pt"><i>*******************************************</i></span></font></div>
<div><font size="1"><span style="font-size:8pt"><i>Sue Andrews</i></span></font></div>
<div><font size="1"><span style="font-size:8pt"><i>Principal Cataloguer</i></span></font></div>
<div><font size="1"><span style="font-size:8pt"><i>University of British Columbia Library</i></span></font></div>
<div><font size="1"><span style="font-size:8pt"><i><a href="https://maps.google.com/?q=2198+Health+Sciences+Mall,+Vancouver+BC+V6T+1Z3&entry=gmail&source=g">2198 Health Sciences Mall, Vancouver BC V6T 1Z3</a></i></span></font></div>
<div><font size="1"><span style="font-size:8pt"><i>Tel. <a href="tel:(604)%20822-4995" value="+16048224995" target="_blank">604-822-4995</a> Email: <a href="mailto:susan.andrews@ubc.ca" target="_blank">susan.andrews@ubc.ca</a></i></span></font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman"> </font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman"> </font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman"> </font></div>
</span></font>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div></div>