[DCRM-L] prospectuses

[Manon Theroux]

I'd vote for both, too- uniform title as 6xx for subject access and as
7xx for related work added entry.

I see it as similar to such situations as: cataloging correspondence
and using the same personal name in 6xx/7xx; cataloging trial
proceedings and using the same personal name in 6xx/7xx; cataloging
annual reports and using the same corporate name in 6xx/7xx, etc. Of
course, the 6xx/7xx headings might have slight differences- the 6xx
might get an additional subdivision (e.g. $v Correspondence) and the
7xx might get a $e relator term. I guess there is no $v Prospectuses.
In a record for a prospectus for an edition of a sacred work, $x
Publication and distribution might make a nice 6xx subdivision though.

I'm trying to think of a similar 6xx/7xx situation involving uniform
titles and all I can come up with are parodies. You could have a 630
with $v Parodies, imitations, etc. and a 730 related work added entry.
Not that everyone does that, necessarily...

-Manon

-- 
Manon Théroux
Head, Cataloging & Metadata Services
George Mason University
Fenwick Library, MSN 2FL
4400 University Drive
Fairfax, VA 22030
703-993-2313 (phone)
703-993-2263 (fax)

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Karen Nipps <nipps at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> 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.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *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)

>>
>> *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.