[DCRM-L] Cataloging of single leaves

[Noble, Richard]

Well, it's really an incomplete item, not an incomplete manifestation
(which is a class, the items being the individuals of the class). I've
never liked this situation either, and there's no excuse for a such
rules-based disservice to our patrons. A lamb chop is not a lamb.

 

Might one approach the problem by declaring, at the outset, that a
fragmentary copy is not merely imperfect, but a different thing
altogether, which should be described as such? We don't treat the leaf
in a leaf-book as a copy (I hope), and what we're talking about is
leaf-books without a book--ignoble fragments. (Treating a fragment as an
imperfect copy has an analogue in the wrong-headed LC policy of
cataloging reformatted manifestations by way of describing the original
and adding a note-fine, or at least workable for a single institution,
perhaps, but a perfect misery in a union database like the WorldCat.)

 

Is this something that Bib Standards might want to consider? I've a
sense that it may not have been a burning issue in the past, because
many libraries would have dealt with fragments in-house only; but add
your leaf as a holding to the OCLC master record for the book and it
becomes everybody's problem. In any case, I don't think FRBR, as it
stands, comes to our rescue, though the scattered fragments of
individual books do constitute a roughly definable class, a sort of
post-production manifestation of which any one fragment is an instance.

 

RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN
UNIVERSITY
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-2093 :
RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU 

 

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Dooley,Jackie
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 1:04 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Cataloging of single leaves

 

Would FRBR help? Does it get to the level of stating whether it's
acceptable to describe an incomplete manifestation in the main body of
the record?

 

Jackie Dooley

Consulting Archivist

OCLC Research and the RLG Partnership

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 10:01 AM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Cataloging of single leaves

 

This is an interesting question. We do the same, even though sometimes
we only have a title page (legacy of Halliwell-Phillipps' scrapbooking).
And even though that particular note, as with all notes on
imperfections, is always the first note, I also am uncomfortable.

 

What would alternatives be? Catalog the single leaf(ves) as themselves,
with links to the larger work? Maybe the latter as uniform title? 

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Ryan
Sent: Tuesday, 06 April, 2010 12:40
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/20100406/02967b9f/attachment.htm