[DCRM-L] Cataloging unpublished facsimiles

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Thanks to the replies I've gotten so far. I especially like what Stephen
suggests; a prominent note on the nature of what's being cataloged is
entirely appropriate without resorting to making it look purely like a
copy-specific note. 

What surprises me is that no one has mentioned what first occurred to
me: that the 260 and 300 field should reflect what you're cataloging: in
this case, the facsimile. That would be the best (not to mention
standard) in-your-faceness. 

Such a practice would be possible for future cataloging, but it's not
feasible for us to go back to each record and re-fashion the publication
data and physical description.

If anybody's interested, I'll let you know what we decide. And because
we haven't decided yet, please feel free to continue to reply; we're in
the data-collecting stage.
__________________________
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
Head of Cataloging
Folger Shakespeare Library
201 East Capitol St., S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003
202.675-0369
djleslie at folger.edu | http://www.folger.edu 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20071001/a4415069/attachment.htm