[DCRM-L] prospectuses

[Manon Theroux]

Once upon a time, didn't RLIN index names in 6xx fields as both
subjects and names? That would have made the addition of the names in
7xx fields seem superfluous. Maybe some dim memory of that system
contributed to the lingering bias...

-Manon

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu> wrote:
> 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