[DCRM-L] Cataloging of single leaves

[Ann Myers]

We have just started investigating the same issue here. Most of our
single leaves are manuscripts with the added challenge of not being able
to identify the work from which they originated, so cataloging those as
single leaves makes the most sense. However, we have also cataloged a
few Caxton leaves as single leaves - we were uncomfortable with giving
the impression that we have the whole book when all we have is a leaf,
especially knowing how few patrons read the local notes in our records.
For examples, see OCLC # 317410156 and # 438949187. I don't know if this
is the best approach, but it was the best solution we came up with at
the time.

 

--Ann

 

Ann Myers

Special Collections Cataloger

Morris Library Mail Code 6632

Southern Illinois University Carbondale

605 Agriculture Drive

Carbondale, IL 62901

618-453-1499

amyers at lib.siu.edu

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Ryan
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 11:40 AM
To: 'DCRM Revision Group List'
Subject: [DCRM-L] Cataloging of single leaves

 

Has anyone approached the cataloging of an individual leaf (or leaves)
in a manner in which the physical description reflects only what you
have (vs. DCRM(B) 5B1.1)? The question is prompted by a loan request in
which the requester did not realize that our "copy" was merely two
leaves of a publication. This information is stated in a local note, but
one of our public services librarians feels that this is not a very user
friendly way of saying we have only two leaves. 

 

Thanks,

Ryan

 

--

Ryan Hildebrand

Book Cataloging Dept. Head

Harry Ransom Center

University of Texas at Austin

P.O. Box 7219

Austin, TX 78713-7219

512-232-1681

www.hrc.utexas.edu <http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20100406/1eecd993/attachment.htm