[DCRM-L] prospectuses

Tue Sep 15 09:04:32 MDT 2009

The key issue is that a prospectus has more than just a subject relationship to the work it advertises.  It is linked to the production of a specific edition (a concordance or separately published index, similarly, is linked to a specific edition of a work).  (The "correspondence" example is not about making a 7xx for the writer of the letter, but for the recipient.)

With regard to a book advertised:  If I find an ad for a book in an 18th-century newspaper, and I want to find the book, I won't look under subject, but under title or author/title.  Even if the book were never published, it would be useful to me to find a prospectus (maybe especially if the book were never published).

In short, I don't see any reason not to make a 7xx entry, regardless of whether a prospectus is exactly like any other sort of related work - it costs almost nothing (a quick cut-and-paste from the 6xx), is certainly justified even if not required, and can be helpful, especially to the readers most of us are likely to serve - i.e., those who are interested not only in the text but also in the artifact.

--
John Lancaster (jlancaster at amherst.edu)
P.O. Box 775
Williamsburg, Mass. 01096
413-268-7679

________________________________

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu on behalf of Karen Attar
Sent: Tue 9/15/2009 4:15 AM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] prospectuses

I'd go for 6xx. Whether or not it goes in 7xx, a prospectus must go in in 6xx because it is a work about.

Re 7xx: Works of criticism can exist only because of the base work (e.g. "Jane Austen's 'Emma' : a landmark in English fiction"; "The Canterbury Tales : a literary pilgrimage" (by David Williams)), and we would not use 7xx for those. I'd see a prospectus as analogous to critical works.

I would see the use of both 6xx and 7xx for correspondence as different because the correspondent is definitely providing intellectual content and is also providing information about himself; similarly, an annual report is generated by the institution (7xx) and also about the institution (6xx).

There's also the minor awkwardness about prospectuses which advertise non-existent works, either books advertised but never published, or books of which no copies survive.

It's a good discussion!

Karen

Dr Karen Attar
Rare Books Librarian
Senate House Library
University of London
Senate House
Malet Street
London
WC1E 7HU
Tel. 020 7862 8472

-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Manon Theroux
Sent: 14 September 2009 22:02
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] prospectuses

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.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 9710 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20090915/6e2d438c/attachment.bin 