[DCRM-L] Collated & Perfect

[Erin Blake]

I like the idea, not only for security but for completeness of documentation in itself. You've gone to the trouble of collating it, so why not mention the results in all cases? My own bad memory combined with frequent interruptions is a case in point: I've started noting "no visible watermark" when describing drawings because otherwise I forget whether or not I've already checked.  

Instead of a 590, though, what about a 583 in the holdings record? That way you don't have to go back and add copy numbers should a second copy turn up, patrons aren't seeing a potentially-cryptic "C.&p. DJL 20070714" up front, and it allows curators and conservators to see notes relating to an item's condition all in one place (and to isolate them when running reports, search by date, etc.). 

Maybe something like:
583 ## $acondition reviewed$c20070714$kDJL$lcollated and perfect

The extra field and subfielding is time consuming, but if it's going to be done for every rare item cataloged, then it shouldn't be too hard to create a macro that would fill in everything but the $l automatically (she said with naive enthusiasm, not having yet had any experience with Connexion Client -- we get our training next month). 

  EB.

_________________________________________________________

Erin C. Blake, Ph.D.  |  Curator of Art & Special Collections  |  Folger Shakespeare Library  |  201 E. Capitol St. SE  |  Washington, DC 20003-1004  |  office tel. (202) 675-0323  |  fax: (202) 675-0328  |  eblake at folger.edu  |  www.folger.edu


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 3308 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20070715/b1f70246/attachment.bin