[DCRM-L] Collated & Perfect

[E. C. Schroeder]

I would like to go back to Deborah's original statement.  Who would such a 
note be aimed at?  I'm not certain that making such a note would make much 
difference in a court of law, and would want to confirm its value.  If it 
is for "internal" purposes, then it is possible to perhaps add such a note 
in either a 9XX field or perhaps as part of the holdings record, but in a 
non-public field.

Jane has been doing something comparable for Beinecke's serial records as 
we gradually work through the recon records.  I believe she puts such a 
note in the holdings record.

E.C. Schroeder

P.S.  Jane, aren't you busy at RBS?

At 01:24 PM 7/16/2007, jane.gillis at yale.edu wrote:
>2 points.
>
>1. I think Institutional Records might include 590 notes.
>
>2. OCLC records are not just for catalogers.  They can be used for
>bibliographical purposes, for interlibrary loan, etc.
>
>It will be interesting to see how IRs will affect the OCLC database.
>
>Jane Gillis
>
>Quoting John Overholt <overholt at fas.harvard.edu>:
>
>>It seems like you'd want the note in a holdings record if possible, or at 
>>least in a field that doesn't end up in the WorldCat master record (which 
>>a 590 wouldn't, if I'm not mistaken). If you were creating an original 
>>record in Connexion, I guess you'd have to wait to add it until after you 
>>exported to your local system. I've always preferred keeping local 
>>information out of WorldCat unless it has implications for other 
>>libraries cataloging the same item.
>>--John
>>
>>John Overholt
>>Assistant Curator
>>The Donald and Mary Hyde Collection of Dr. Samuel Johnson/
>>Early Modern Books and Manuscripts
>>Houghton Library
>>Harvard University
>>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/hydeblog
>>
>>
>>
>>Margaret Nichols wrote:
>>>One thought that occurs to me is that since people don't always remove 
>>>the previous institution's notes from the record when they copy it for 
>>>their own institution, the "collated & perfect" note might end up being 
>>>misleading in those cases. On the other hand, if the note begins with 
>>>"Folger copy" or the like, I suppose that removes that danger (except 
>>>for the occasional extremely unobservant patron).
>>>
>>>Hope this doesn't sound too muddled--it's Monday ...
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>
>>>Margaret Nichols
>>>
>>>At 05:02 PM 7/14/2007, you wrote:
>>>
>>>>At ALA annual this year, RBMS  co-sponsored a program with MAGERT on 
>>>>library map security. One of the speakers was Smiley's prosecuting 
>>>>attorney, who stated that a catalog record that didn't mention 
>>>>imperfections wouldn't stand up in court as evidence that it had no 
>>>>imperfections at the time it was cataloged; a defense attorney would 
>>>>merely need to find a few examples of cataloging that failed to mention 
>>>>existing imperfections at the time of cataloging.
>>>>
>>>>It occurred to me that for cataloging rare materials, it might be worth 
>>>>considering incorporating the old "collated & perfect" (sometimes 
>>>>abbreviated "c.&p.") note that booksellers and collectors used to 
>>>>pencil into books or include in descriptions. I'm imagining something 
>>>>like this, where a note on the state of the volume's completeness would 
>>>>come at the front of all copy-specific notes:
>>>>
>>>>590 Folger copy: C.&p. DJL 20070714. Bound in <...>
>>>>
>>>>Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>_____________________________
>>>>Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
>>>>Head of Cataloging
>>>>Folger Shakespeare Library
>>>>djleslie at folger.edu
>>>>_ http://www.folger.edu_
>>>
>>>________________________________
>>>
>>>Margaret Nichols
>>>Head, Special Collections Materials Unit
>>>Library Technical Services
>>>110 Olin Library
>>>Cornell University
>>>Ithaca, NY. 14853-5302
>>>mnr1 at cornell.edu  *  Tel. (607) 255-5752 / 255-3530  *  Fax (607) 255-9524
>>>