[DCRM-L] Cataloging of single leaves

Wed Apr 7 04:49:21 MDT 2010

It’s comforting to know that the Folger does this: so do we.  I can’t say how consciously we stretched the MARC 21 definition of 852, but many years ago we worked out that where we had multiple copies – of which some were imperfect – of editions, it was difficult to achieve clarity without noting imperfections after shelfmarks.  I think this applies all the more now that we have a growing amount of provenance information, with indexing, in our records.  If you look at http://main-cat.nls.uk/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=11&ti=1,11&Search%5FArg=boece&Search%5FCode=NAME%5F&CNT=50&PID=DUi4ln3UPtGr2_6ez9TTrwKyaXKAT&SEQ=20100407111500&SID=10 (nine copies of Boece, Scotorum historiae, Paris, 1527 – for this purpose please ignore any flaws in the record)

you will see what I mean.  To have the imperfections noted and displayed as part of the bib record would probably result in many repeats of the kind of scenario that Ryan described.  And this is not a one-off situation because there are many overlaps in content between those of our special named collections that have a Scottish focus.

Now that we have implemented Voyager ‘call-slip’, using virtual bar codes, for our rare books, and unless we force it by making books ‘unavailable’ there is no staff-user dialogue when books are being ordered and so less control over which copies our users order, it is all the more important that the imperfection information is there in the holdings, alongside the shelfmark.  I suspect that otherwise more users would unwittingly order up copies from the comfort of their homes but then on arrival in the library find that they have ordered an imperfect copy.   

This discussion began with a case of two leaves of a book, but the kernel of the problem that was brought to Ryan’s attention is that of an imperfect book – even if it’s missing only one leaf – and I think that’s what we need to focus on.

Brian

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

Dr Brian Hillyard

Rare Book Collections Manager

National Library of Scotland

George IV Bridge, Edinburgh EH1 1EW

E-mail: b.hillyard at nls.uk

Direct dial: +44 (0)131 623 3889

Fax: +44 (0)131 623 3888

P please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to

________________________________

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: 06 April 2010 20:53
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 

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 15:16
To: 'DCRM Revision Group List'
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Cataloging of single leaves

Mike,

The note reads: HRC copy imperfect: wanting all but leaf lxxx (from I Chronicles) and leaf cxi (from Esther). It's a sensible note, but I admit to laughing. -Ryan

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Garabedian
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 1:17 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Cataloging of single leaves

I don't have a solution but I was just wondering, Ryan, what the local note says when all you have is two leaves.  "Incomplete copy; all but leaves A2 and A3 wanting"?

On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Ann Myers <amyers at lib.siu.edu> wrote:

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/> 

***********************************************************************
Visit the National Library of Scotland online at www.nls.uk
***********************************************************************
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

This communication is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you
are not the intended recipient, please notify the Information Services Helpdesk on +44 131 623 3789 or is.helpdesk at nls.uk and delete this e-mail. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Library of Scotland. The National Library of Scotland is a registered Scottish charity. Scottish Charity No. SC011086. This message is subject to the Data Protection Act 1998 
and Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and has been 
scanned by Webroot.
*********************************************************************** 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20100407/66c7d18b/attachment.htm 