[DCRM-L] prospectuses

[John Lancaster]

I agree with Bob that both 6xx and7xx entries are appropriate and
justified.  I would always make both, not least because I would want
someone looking for the work itself to also be made aware of the
prospectus, even if they weren't looking for studies about the work.

 

Just the fact that you waver seems to me suggestive that it's worth
making both entries - it costs very little, can't hurt, and might help.

 

--

John Lancaster (jlancaster at amherst.edu)

P.O. Box 775

Williamsburg, MA 01096-0775

413-268-7679

________________________________

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 7:30 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] prospectuses

 

Thanks, Bob; I'd come to the conclusion that 6xx was the better place
for it, and will mull over whether a 7xx work added entry is also called
for. 

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Saturday, 12 September, 2009 19:18
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] prospectuses

 

I give a uniform title in a 600 (or 630) when cataloging a prospectus at
the item level, since the prospectus is about the book. That is the
subject of what you are cataloging, so I think a subject tracing should
be made. However, a 7XX tracing is also appropriate, since the work
embodied in the book described in the prospectus is clearly a "related
work" to the prospectus (which itself is a work, the one you happen to
be cataloging).

 

So my practice is to put it in 6XX and that is where I would expect to
find it if I were looking in the catalog for prospectuses about a book.
So I would recommend that as at a minimum. It would not be wrong, in
addition, to have a 7XX related work entry.

 

Note: in most cases at BYU, however, we catalog prospectuses on a
collection-level record for ephemera from the press producing the book,
so we don't usually create item-level records for prospectuses. But when
we do my practice has been as described.

 

Here are some examples of our collection-level records:

 

http://catalog.lib.byu.edu/uhtbin/ckey-search/3966269 (Foolscap Press)

 

http://catalog.lib.byu.edu/uhtbin/ckey-search/3965780 (Incline Press)

 

For very large collections we make separate records by year

 

http://catalog.lib.byu.edu/uhtbin/ckey-search/3966251 (Arion Press,
2008)

 

Bob

 

Robert L. Maxwell

Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian

Genre/Form Authorities Librarian

6728 Harold B. Lee Library

Brigham Young University

Provo, UT 84602

(801)422-5568 

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 4:59 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: [DCRM-L] prospectuses

 

I'm cataloging a prospectus. Does it make more sense to put the
name/title tracing as a 600 or a 700? I keep wavering, and I've seen it
done both ways. The prospectus is about the publication, just as the
publication is a related work to the prospectus. Putting it in both
seems like overkill.

 

Thanks for any discussion; perhaps we can establish an informal
convention.

 

__________________________ 
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. 
RBMS Chair 2009-2010 | 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 <http://www.folger.edu/>  

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20090912/aa05482a/attachment.htm