[DCRM-L] prospectuses

[Deborah J. Leslie]

I, too, am persuaded that both 6xx and 7xx entries are optimal for
prospectuses. Since I gave the justification for same in my first email,
I went back and considered why I thought it "overkill" to do. If my
memory isn't totally misleading me, it has to do with some very early
systems that were extremely clumsy about the indexing of names as
subjects. I added both fields to my record, searched it every which way,
and could find nothing in the results to object to. It seems I've been
carrying an unexamined bias against "duplicated" 6xx's and 7xx's for a
long time. Not that I think they should be duplicated indiscriminately,
but clearly it's not appropriate to avoid duplication at all costs,
which I've been very nearly prepared to do. 

 

Thanks all for this discussion. 

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of John Lancaster
Sent: Tuesday, 15 September, 2009 11:05
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] prospectuses

 

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20090915/e2498b88/attachment.htm