[DCRB-L] WG4 - Position paper

[Richard_Noble at brown.edu]

A couple of small points, quickly:

"3)  Since the collection is not published, the publication area (260) should not be used at all.  Instead, the inclusive and/or bulk date subfields ($f and/or $g) in the title field (245) provide complete date-related information.  An additional benefit of placing the dates directly after the title is that this provides a readily distinguishable clue that the record as one for a collection."

This is sensitive to some local system characteristics. Brown's catalog bases some important date manipulations on the 260c, and that's where we put the dates. As to signalling whether or not the record is a collection record, I doubt whether all but a few readers actually acquainted with cataloging practice will draw any conclusion one way or the other. The title and note fields should certainly be sufficient to indicate the nature of the beast.

"4)  The formatted contents note (505) should be avoided entirely. Using a contents note gives the impression that the items were issued as part of a whole and renders ambiguous whether this is a unique compilation or not."

Again, I find it hard to imagine that this is much of an issue as far as readers are concerned. The use of the note should, I think, be an option available to catalogers when it is felt that the users and managers of the collection may be well served by a 505, even perhaps an "enhanced" 505 for the sake of indexing. I've used the 505, for instance, in the record for a collection of 60+ catalogs issued by fireworks manufacturers, giving us useful keyword access to corporate names that could not be established as headings in a cost-effective manner. I think it's perfectly clear from its other features that the record does not represent any kind of published compilation or collection.

RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOK CATALOGUER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-2093 : RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU