[DCRM-L] Cataloging unpublished facsimiles

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Thanks, Larry. 

Dorothy said that at the Huntington, they toyed with the idea of using a
local GMD. I wonder ... does anyone on this list use a local GMD? 


__________________________
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 


-----Original Message-----
From: Laurence Creider [mailto:lcreider at lib.NMSU.Edu] 
Sent: Monday, 01 October, 2007 15:37
To: Deborah J. Leslie
Cc: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Cataloging unpublished facsimiles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 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
>