[DCRM-L] Cataloging of single leaves

[Noble, Richard]

The trouble with such an approach is its dependency on local display protocols. In the case of union databases (think of the WorldCat in its increasingly various guises) it’s out of your hands and possibly up to some mischief.

 

Ryan asks whether I would attach my holdings to a generic “fragments” record (so to call it), and yes, I would. I think that would be ideal. That puts everyone on notice that it’s this sort of thing, but the individual holdings necessarily vary. (I tend to favor “fragments”, since that avoids the problem of singular vs. plural “leaf” or “leaves”—it’s that much more generic.)

 

I don’t know where it would stand vis-a vis RDA, but in the context of DCRM(B) perhaps one could come up with a set of informal guidelines, not unlike those for dealing with copy-specific information, that would encourage more or less consistent treatment of common phenomena.

 

Richard

 

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 3:53 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Cataloging of single leaves

 

Another important aspect to this is where the cataloger puts the note and how the opac displays it. We use holdings field 852 ‡z for all copy-specific notes. It's a stretch of the MARC 21 definition, which is supposed to be a public note about the location, but all things considered we're comfortable with this approach. The advantage: such notes display immediately with the copy to which they pertain, rather than being buried somewhere in general notes. E.g.,

 

http://shakespeare.folger.edu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?BBID=208274 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20100406/2b37cb57/attachment.htm