[DCRM-L] prospectuses

[Karen Nipps]

Houghton also generally does both.

John Lancaster wrote:
>
> 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 <mailto: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/>
>

-- 
*************************************
Karen Nipps
Head, Rare Books Team
Houghton Library
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA 02138
(T) 617-496-9190; (F) 617-495-1376

**************************************