[DCRM-L] Correction Re: Cataloging unpublished facsimiles (fwd)

[Laurence Creider]

Folks,
For clarity's sake, please insert the words "AACR2 and LCRI" before the 
word "options" at the beginning of the third sentence of the second 
paragraph of my message.  Sorry.

Larry

Laurence S. Creider
Head, General Cataloging Unit &
Special Collections Librarian
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 505-646-4707, 505-646-7227
Fax: 505-646-7477
lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 13:37:20 -0600 (MDT)
From: Laurence Creider <lcreider at lib.NMSU.Edu>
Reply-To: DCRM Revision Group List <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
To: Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu>
Cc: DCRM Revision Group List <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Cataloging unpublished facsimiles

Deborah,
What first occurs to you is what AACR2 actually says.  The practice of 
cataloging the original and then adding a GMD when applicable and a 533 note is 
United States practice enshirined in an early LCRI.  J. McRee Elrod decries our 
deviance every change he gets.  While this has its advantages for your purpose, 
adopting this would make it harder to put a record for the reproduction on the 
record for the original.

I think that what you are really asking for is permission to do something 
that does not follow current national standards.  The Folger already does 
that with separate records for its copies of Shakespeare's First Folios, 
IIRC, and I think does so rightly.  The AACR2 and LCRI options for 
signaling the user that what they are looking at is an on-demand 
reproduction are the GMD and a 533 note.  After all, it is your 
institution's catalog and you probably need to violate national policies 
on occasion to make your collection useful to your patrons.  The tricky 
parts are documenting these, keeping knowledge of them current among your 
staff, and rethinking them as the technological framework changes.

What you can do is to fudge the order of the Reproduction note, which is no big 
deal to most of us, or you can use a locally developed GMD, like [reproduction] 
or [facsimile]. You can also make sure that your default display includes the 
reproduction notes.  As an additional signal, you can add something to the call 
number, such as a location (like Microfiche) or a letter to the end of the call 
number (many libraries use an "a" at the end of the date in LCC).  In any case, 
please make these changes in your own catalog and not in any OCLC master record 
that you input (I just add this because you are relatively new to OCLC).

I hope this helps.

Larry

Laurence S. Creider
Head, General Cataloging Unit &
Special Collections Librarian
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 505-646-4707, 505-646-7227
Fax: 505-646-7477
lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu

On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:

> 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
>