[DCRM-L] Collated & Perfect

[Carol Fink]

The Library of Michigan creates copy specific information in a 590 note
with the statement beginning, LM copy #: and then everything pertinent
to that copy. We stopped creating a 500 signature note when we merged
our catalog with Michigan State's. After several instances of a new
record overlaying ours and our copy specific information just
disappearing, we started putting everything in a 590. The system is set
up to retain all 590 notes, but not to protect all 500 notes. 
 
The information is aimed at staff and at researchers who want to know
what might be different about our copy. We've been asked more than once
about a copy's binding or no. of plates and it's quicker to look at the
catalog record instead of retrieve the piece.
 
I don't know about any legal protections such a note would provide but
I want to know how many plates, maps, etc. were in the book the day we
acquired it.
 
The 590 does not appear in OCLC master records so subsequent use does
not require deleting the information.
Carol Fink
Library of Michigan
 

>>> edwin.schroeder at yale.edu 7/16/2007 1:37 PM >>>

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
>>>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20070718/f76c8d5b/attachment.htm