[DCRM-L] Early works to 1800

[Young, Stephen]

I think we probably want to keep the subdivision, but it certainly has been used inconsistently over the years. For many years it was not supposed to be applied to theological works. If the scope were extended to make it completely free floating, it would simplify things for catalogers. Even though I’ve been using the subdivision for years, I still have to check the scope from time to time. My observation is that the ESTC project used the subdivision for everything in many of its records. When adapting their records, our catalogers had to strip out the subdivision to conform to LC practice.

I don’t see much utility in a 655 Early works to 1800 except for very small collections where such works would be an oddity.

Stephen R. Young
Rare Book Team Leader
Catalog and Metadata Services
Sterling Memorial Library
Box 208240
New Haven, CT 06520-8240

Tel.: 203-432-8385
Fax: 203-432-7231

Email: stephen.young at yale.edu




From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 2:21 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: [DCRM-L] Early works to 1800

Hello, all,

I’m on a SAC subcommittee making recommendations for the disposition of the genre/form subdivisions established as 185 records in the subject authority file. We’re discussing the subdivision —Early works to 1800 right now.

First, I assume we want to be able to continue using this as a subdivision in 650 (etc.), correct?

Second, would there be interest in expanding its scope? At the moment it’s only allowed “under names of countries, cities, etc., and under classes of persons, ethnic groups, and topical headings for individual works written or issued before 1800.” E.g., it can’t be used under names of persons in 600 fields; in addition, SCM 1576 forbids its use in the following situations:

5.  When to omit the subdivision.  Do not use the subdivision in situations for which the passage of time is of little consequence, including the following:
·   under names of persons, corporate bodies (except for geographic names), or individual works (except sacred works)
·   historical works; chronologies
·   under headings with dates, or period subdivisions; under headings with period qualifiers, for example, Science, Ancient
·   works of belles lettres; works about belles lettres

I would personally like to see the subdivision become completely free floating, i.e., allowed in any subject string without the omission requirements of SCM 1576. What do the rest of you think?

Third, would there be interest in establishing the term “Early works to 1800” (or something similar) as a genre/form term, allowing its use in 655?

Thanks,
Bob


Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20100423/68bb7760/attachment.htm