[DCRM-L] Speaking of made-up copies

[Ryan Hildebrand]

I agree, it does not belong in Publishing, especially given the Physical amendments hierarchy in Provenance. I will submit a change request. (With regard to the previous issues of advertisements in CV search returns, I do not see them, either.) -Ryan

--
Ryan Hildebrand
Book Cataloging Department 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/>



From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 2:16 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: [DCRM-L] Speaking of made-up copies

What is the rationale for including them in the Publishing thesaurus instead of Provenance? Even the hierarchy is puzzling, because surely sophisticating copies is not in itself fraudulent.

BT Fakery, falsification, imitation, and copying (Gathering term; do not assign)


Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> | 202.675-0369 | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 | www. folger.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20140603/5f1ded4d/attachment.html>