[DCRM-L] Early works to 1800

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Yes, with Richard, I feel strongly about this too. 

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Thursday, 29 April, 2010 11:47
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Early works to 1800

 

I repeat my plea not that no one should misuse this subdivision to group
items by publication dates of editions. If it's truly free-floating,
then you're free not to use it, should it be truly inapplicable within a
discipline or, to your mind, disrespectful of the work. If you want to
group by publication date, program your catalog to make use of relevant
information elsewhere in the record (260 $c or fixed field dates) to
limit searches; or devise a local chronological index, if you need the
additional data element.

 

In short, please let's not expand its scope to index either date of
composition (of work/expression) or date of publication (of
manifestation). Functional ambiguity of this kind is death to a catalog
and bad for FRBR (which I regard as rather a pipe dream, absent a lot of
"cataloger judgment", but useful as an abstract guiding principle, to
remind us that we're constructing catalogs).

 

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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20100430/8040514b/attachment.htm