[DCRM-L] Early works to 1800

Tue Apr 27 07:35:40 MDT 2010

This is categorically a genre heading, the genre being that of works
written before 1800, regardless of publication date. In FRBR terms, it
characterizes, by a chronological criterion, the work or expression; it
has nothing to do with the date of any one manifestation, for which
descriptive information in the record ought to be adequate in such
matters as enabling access and controlling use; if it is not, then the
catalogue is defective.

Texts of a work (editions/issues) are issued; works as such are not-they
can be 'published', a less precise term. Those in existence as
unpublished works before 1800 are 'Early works to 1800' regardless of
the date of their initial publication, which might well take place two
centuries or more later, or not at all, in the case of a manuscript.
Indeed, the subdivision is most useful in its application to modern
editions. It would be fatal to its utility if its function were to be
confused with that of dating books.

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 Karen Attar
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 5:14 AM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Early works to 1800

This all sounds excellent.

While the subdivision $vEarly works to 1800 is being reviewed, is it
timely to reconsider its scope in another respect? The present
instruction to apply it to works 'written or issued before 1800' means
that it should be applied to any modern edition of an early text with
relevant subject headings. Thus content is the primary consideration,
not form.

Does the rare book cataloguing community want to retain current usage,
to indicate primarily that the content of the work may be of historical
rather than of current interest? Or would it prefer to restrict the
subdivision to works issued before 1800, as a way of flagging up that
the item being catalogued is not borrowable, will have to be read in an
invigilated reading room, etc.? This would turn it into a form
subdivision.

Karen

Dr Karen Attar

Rare Books Librarian

Senate House Library, University of London

Senate House

Malet St

London

WC1E 7HU

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: 26 April 2010 15:38
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Early works to 1800

As to "Early works...", it looks as if the community is of one accord.
Keep and apply ad lib. If I had my druthers, one could also or
alternatively use "Works, Xth century", as a more fine-grained way of
dating the work, not the publication: very FRBR, that.

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 Randal Brandt
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 5:38 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Early works to 1800

I'll keep this simple:

1. Keep the subdivision: Yes!
2. Expand its scope: Yes!

Thanks, Bob.

Randy

Robert Maxwell wrote: 

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 

-- 
__________________________
Randal Brandt
Principal Cataloger
The Bancroft Library
(510) 643-2275
rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu
http://bancroft.berkeley.edu
"It's hard enough to remember my opinions without 
remembering my reasons for them"--The Streets.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20100427/0b073ceb/attachment.htm 