[DCRM-L] 510 citations

[Erin Blake]

I'd say the key difference is that the 510 is currently a list of unique (or unique-ish) identifiers for the thing being cataloged. If I'm cataloging a printer's device (which we sometimes do: they're in the loose print collection) and it's in McKerrow, I'd make a 510 for McKerrow to say "the thing I'm describing is the same thing as McKerrow no. 117".

If we start using the 510 as a list of works cited as well, we won't be able to tell which kind of citation we have when migrating from MARC. And we're so close to being able to do just that.

EB.

________

Erin C. Blake, Ph.D.  |  Head of Collection Information Services  |  Folger Shakespeare Library  |  201 E. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC, 20003  |  eblake at folger.edu<mailto:eblake at folger.edu>  |  office tel. +1 202-675-0323<tel:%2B1%20202-675-0323>  |  fax +1 202-675-0328<tel:%2B1%20202-675-0328>  |  www.folger.edu<http://www.folger.edu/>



From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Cates, Patrick
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 10:57 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] 510 citations

I think it would be a really good idea to expand the scope of SCF to include works that are likely to be cited in notes but aren't bibliographies (for example, catalogs of printer's devices, ornaments, watermarks, etc.). I bet McKerrow and Ferguson is cited in more records than a lot of the titles in SCF; what sense does it make to exclude it?

Patrick Cates
Technical Services Librarian
Christoph Keller, Jr. Library
General Theological Seminary
440 W. 21st Street
New York, NY 10011
646-717-9789

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Manon Theroux <manon.theroux at gmail.com<mailto:manon.theroux at gmail.com>> wrote:

***SNIPPED***

    If the SCF editorial team wants to expand the scope of the SCF beyond bibliographies and catalogs, that's their call. I think it is certainly possible for other types of reference sources and scholarly publications to contain published descriptions of items being cataloged (even ones that rival the most detailed bibliographies and catalogs) and maybe a more refined set of criteria for submissions could be identified. But I can also see how keeping the current scope might be seen as preferable to them for practical reasons if nothing else (workload concerns!). Maybe something for them to ponder and address in their guidelines at some point in the future.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150812/ec381b2b/attachment.html>