[DCRM-L] RE: concept of chief title

[Deborah J. Leslie]

And as Paul Dunkin was actually a Folger cataloger, the length of some
of our older cards makes sense ... 
 
 

________________________

Deborah J. Leslie
Folger Library
djleslie at folger.edu
 

	-----Original Message-----
	From: dcrm-l-admin at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-admin at lib.byu.edu]
On Behalf Of Joe Springer
	Sent: Monday, 31 January, 2005 13:12
	To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu; dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
	Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] RE: concept of chief title
	
	
	Deborah is of course correct.  The beginning of the chief title
does not necessarily coincide with the beginning of the title proper and
can be significant for purposes such as added entries.  In my little
equation I was focusing on the end rather than the beginning of the
chief title.  In defining "chief title" a primary motivation of BDRB's
editors must have been the ability to chop off the alternative title in
situations of very lengthy title propers (like covered in BDRB 1B8/DCRB
1B7).  The earlier standard, from Paul S. Dunkin's 1951 How To Catalog a
Rare Book, was somewhat lacking in its specific guidance: "Only when you
have a title which would occupy more than two typed cards should you
consider abbreviating it." 
	
	Joe Springer, Curator
	Mennonite Historical Library.
	
	

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20050131/b41e3481/attachment.htm