[DCRM-L] What Belongs in a Master Record?

[Noble, Richard]

It turned out to be a simple error. There are separate work APs for *Sermones
de tempore* and *Sermones de sanctis.* The cataloger used the wrong 240 (it
should be--and will be--for the first work *de tempore*) and of course got
the case wrong (*sanctus* for* sanctis*) in the 700. My own Latinity is a
limping thing (which can make expansions a trial) so I'm inclined to
forgiveness.

I would be reluctant to encourage deletion of all $5 *notes*, if only
because in some cases I have based a note, usually concerning a variant
within the bounds of the manifestation, on my institution's copy. Perhaps I
should just regard these as general notes (as they actually are) and omit
the subfield, as I do when I've had access to digitized copies that
exemplify the variants.

RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
<Richard_Noble at Br <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Gemberling, Ted P <tgemberl at uab.edu>
wrote:

> I’m not sure what that’s about. I know some people want to eliminate the
> 240 in favor of the 700 $t because the 700 is often more controllable.
> Maybe the cataloger wanted to “cover both bases,” as the saying goes. I’ve
> seen debates about 700 vs. 240 on the PCC list and wasn’t sure what to
> think about the issue.
>
>
>
> I agree with Deborah on removing copy-specific information.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20161027/665cb0f8/attachment-0001.html>