[DCRM-L] Patrons and dedicatees?

Tue Sep 15 15:24:14 MDT 2009

I don't remember much discussion on where to put the name of a dedicatee
if it's going to be traced. I've seen it only in the 700 with a relator
term or code. I can't think of any serious justification for considering
the dedicatee a subject of the work. 

I just looked up what MARC 21 says about the field.

70X-75X: Added entries that provide additional access to a bibliographic
record from names and/or titles having various relationships to a work.

700: Added entries are assigned according to various cataloging rules to
give access to the bibliographic record from personal name headings
which may not be more appropriately assigned as 600 (Subject Added
Entry-Personal Name) or 800 (Series Added Entry-Personal Name) fields. 

These two together confirm that field 700 is the appropriate place.
Dedicatees have a relationship with the work, which qualifies it for a
700, and the 700 is also the catch-all field for personal names that are
not a subject or a series. 

__________________________ 
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/>  

-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Schupbach ,William
Sent: Tuesday, 15 September, 2009 15:08
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: [DCRM-L] Patrons and dedicatees?

I have a similar question to the one about prospectuses.  Where in

MARC21 should patrons and dedicatees go, when they are entered at all?  

In the Wellcome Library catalogue they have sometimes been put in 700

when the cataloguer gets the impression that the patron/dedicatee had

some "responsibility" for, or made a "contribution" to the creation or

publication of the work, or "had a relationship to" (AACR2 21.30F1) the

work. 

However they have sometimes been put in 600, on the ground that all the

cataloguer knows about their role in the work is that they are mentioned

in the work and are therefore one of the subjects treated in it.

AACR2 21.30F1 (cited above) says "make an added entry" for related

persons etc., and one might interpret that as 700, on the ground that

AACR2 does not deal with subject added entries. Conversely, that fact

that it does not deal with subject added entries at all might be thought

to disqualify it from influencing the choice. 

I have seen some records in other catalogues in which they have been

entered twice, both as 600 and as 700, but have thought (like Deborah J.

Leslie with the prospectuses) that that might make them over-prominent

in the record, compared with e.g. the author.

Can anyone kindly point me to any discussions or decisions? This

question must surely have arisen before.

William Schupbach 

Wellcome Library, 183 Euston Road, London NW1 2BE 

E-mail: w.schupbach at wellcome.ac.uk 

Visit the Wellcome Library Blog at: http://wellcomelibrary.blogspot.com

-----Original Message-----

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On

Behalf Of dcrm-l-request at lib.byu.edu

Sent: 15 September 2009 19:00

To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu

Subject: DCRM-L Digest, Vol 43, Issue 12

Send DCRM-L mailing list submissions to

          dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit

          https://listserver.lib.byu.edu/mailman/listinfo/dcrm-l

or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

          dcrm-l-request at lib.byu.edu

You can reach the person managing the list at

          dcrm-l-owner at lib.byu.edu

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific

than "Re: Contents of DCRM-L digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: prospectuses (Deborah J. Leslie)

   2. Re: prospectuses (Manon Theroux)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 12:22:25 -0400

From: "Deborah J. Leslie" <DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu>

Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] prospectuses

To: "DCRM Revision Group List" <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>

Message-ID:

          <8160A9CA17FEBC488A19E00F367FFEDF0DEA9EA9 at ARIEL.folger.edu>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

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/e249

8b88/attachment-0001.htm 

------------------------------

Message: 2

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:26:10 -0400

From: Manon Theroux <manon.theroux at gmail.com>

Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] prospectuses

To: DCRM Revision Group List <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>

Message-ID:

          <c616584d0909151026j467b9c18me65b9aa6ccf4429c at mail.gmail.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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

End of DCRM-L Digest, Vol 43, Issue 12

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

This message has been scanned for viruses by BlackSpider MailControl -
www.blackspider.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20090915/0010259c/attachment.htm 