[DCRM-L] 773 title indexing

[Schupbach ,William]

Well, this is indeed a tricky matter.  But first a simple point.  In the
Wellcome Library's catalogue (using Innovative Interfaces software), it
is possible to index 773|t, and we do that.  However, if you click on
it, all it does is place the record for the analytic next to the record
for the host work in a title browse.  It does not positively link them
using the number in subfield |w, as the Voyager examples do.  Wish it
did.  However, in the meantime, lining them up in a browse is second
best (longo intervallo). 

The more complicated point concerns the relation between "works" and
items. By a "work" I mean here the entity described in a bibliographic
record, not "works" in the FRBR sense).  The work is either a multiple
(e.g. a print) or unique (e.g. a painting).  If you have a work which is
a multiple (e.g. an engraving), and an impression of that engraving is
contained in an extra-illustrated volume, then the volume (the host
work) will be unique (akin to a painting), but the constituent entity
may not be: the constituent entity will be related to that host as a
constituent item, not as a work.

For example the Pierpont Morgan extra illustrated volume of Byron (PML
52349) contains on fol. 135 a stipple engraving of Danae after Titian.
But what if you have more than one impression of this print?  If your
bib record for the print (i.e. your record that is valid for every
impression of that print) has a 773 field saying that it is in the
extra-illustrated copy, you will be describing not the stipple engraving
as a work but only one impression of the stipple engraving (i.e. one
item).  In this case, there is a case for saying that the impression
should be related to the volume "upwards" through an item-level
relationship, not through a work-level relationship.

On the other hand, as the volume described in the host record is unique,
the link "downwards" from host to constituent can certainly say that the
volume contains the Danae print and indeed all the other prints. It
would say that in 774 fields.

For example here is a record for an extra-illustrated volume with a few
774 fields
http://catalogue.wellcome.ac.uk/search~S5/o41224i 

And here is a record for a non-unique (a multiple) work, of which one
impression (one impression only) is found in the aforesaid volume,
therefore there is no 773 field but rather a linking at item level:
http://catalogue.wellcome.ac.uk/search~S5/o2929i 

The bibliographic record for the volume can say it includes the print,
but the bibliographic record for the print must not say that it is
included in the volume.  The *item* record for the print can and should
say that.

If on the other hand a print is part of every complete or ideal copy of
the host work, then one can link upwards by a 773 as well as downwards
by a 774.  This might be one example of such a host work:
http://catalogue.wellcome.ac.uk/search~S5/o575628i 

and this would be an example of such a constituent:
http://catalogue.wellcome.ac.uk/search~S5/o678033i 

In the latter case, the 773 would still be valid even if some
impressions of the print were not physically found in a copy of the
host.

The arguments above have some bearing on the use of 772 in the
bibliographic record: one might think that this would be used for a work
that is supplementary to another work, e.g. CDs issued with monographs,
websites containing footnotes to monographs, or supplementary issues of
journals. In these cases every copy of the supplementary work is a
supplement to the host work.  Is this true of prints in
extra-illustrated volumes? 

The purpose of the distinction is to keep the architecture clear and to
try to avoid muddle in the future.  Does that matter?

Hope that's of use, albeit simplified in some respects, and would be
interested in any comments, in case I am completely wrong here.
William.

William Schupbach 
Librarian, Prints Photographs Paintings and Drawings,
Wellcome Library, 183 Euston Road, London NW1 2BE 
E-mail: w.schupbach at wellcome.ac.uk 

Visit the Wellcome Library Blog at: http://wellcomelibrary.blogspot.com





This message has been scanned for viruses by BlackSpider MailControl - www.blackspider.com