[DCRM-L] 340 field in bib. records for books of the machine-press era

Thu Nov 14 20:44:33 MST 2019

I hate to throw a monkey wrench into this discussion, but I have been using 340, I believe correctly, in all sorts of records, not just DCRM records, for all sorts of things (including format), ever since we began cataloging with RDA, so I think it would be rather high handed and wrong for the rare materials community to suggest that 340 be stripped out of all records not coded DCRM.

I'm also not sure about Richard's statement below that "340 field should be regarded as an index only (call it a "linked datum"), requiring support elsewhere in the record". I don't see anything in the MARC format documentation supporting this statement. My understanding that 340, along with other 3XX fields, was created to accomodate RDA elements, and many catalogers have been using it in good faith to record those elements.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.

________________________________
From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> on behalf of Noble, Richard <richard_noble at brown.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 1:15 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] 340 field in bib. records for books of the machine-press era

The 340 field should be regarded as an index only (call it a "linked datum"), requiring support elsewhere in the record. The legacy of bookseller format (based on height and proportions, and pricing, of the bound book) is still too much with us, and all too often counterfactual as to bibliographic format--which is itself only roughly determinable by the criteria of rdabf (leaf-to-sheet proportion), and may be regarded as more properly related to the formes from which whole or partial sheets of paper are printed. See G.T. Tanselle's "The concept of format" (in SB 53) for good reasons not to get entangled in format much past the 1830s, unless you've got good reasons for it; and I'd guess at 1830 as a better cut-off date for Iris O'Brien's admirable suggestion, though most BL records can be rather sketchy in this respect for earlier books as well. I suspect that the field as applied by them is mostly of interest with respect to their own holdings,  because it was their now long outmoded terminology for shelf size.

As to the not always so easy to define or descry distinction of "machine-press" from "hand-press" books: all books--at least those printed from type or plates--have bibliographic format. An 1880 edition in 8s may well actually be a 32mo in 8s, but the evidence is quite subtle or simply lacking. Still, for our kind of work, the paper proportion approach is probably the most practicable. And where that can't be determined, a report of signatures (and whether or not they correspond to physical gatherings) will suffice for dcrmb records. If format cannot be or simply isn't given in physical description, 340 is not applicable.

That said, I've been working with 20th-c. books in which the binding format, so to call it, may well be significant evidence in the distinction of printings (which may  be obscured by the retention of signatures in printing plates), and I may start hunting for thread. (But I don't state a format without further evidence, and instead give the leaf height and width to the 1oth of a cm. One thing that really changes over the course of the c19 is measurement tolerance within batches of assembly-line binding.) Really, the criterion is: have you done your bit of RBS DesBib homework on the book?

Apologies for not having time to shorten this.

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

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 10:30 AM Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu<mailto:DJLeslie at folger.edu>> wrote:

I can't envision any objections from the rare materials community, but if you wanted more feedback, it could be framed to dcrm-l without particular reference to the British Library.

______________________

Deborah J Leslie (she/her) | Senior Cataloger | Folger Shakespeare Library | 201 East Capitol Street, S.E. Washington, DC 20003 | djleslie at folger.edu<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu>

From: Kate Moriarty <kate.moriarty at slu.edu<mailto:kate.moriarty at slu.edu>>
Sent: Thursday, 14 November, 2019 10:16
To: Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu>; 'Moody, Honor M.' <honor_moody at harvard.edu<mailto:honor_moody at harvard.edu>>; 'Lapka, Francis' <francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>>; 'Iris' <Iris.O'Brien at bl.uk<mailto:Iris.O%27Brien at bl.uk>>; 'noah.sheola at bc.edu<mailto:noah.sheola at bc.edu>' <noah.sheola at bc.edu<mailto:noah.sheola at bc.edu>>; 'Richard_Noble at brown.edu<mailto:Richard_Noble at brown.edu>' <Richard_Noble at brown.edu<mailto:Richard_Noble at brown.edu>>; 'dezel002 at umn.edu<mailto:dezel002 at umn.edu>' <dezel002 at umn.edu<mailto:dezel002 at umn.edu>>; 'marseidl at vassar.edu<mailto:marseidl at vassar.edu>' <marseidl at vassar.edu<mailto:marseidl at vassar.edu>>; 'jpbarton at princeton.edu<mailto:jpbarton at princeton.edu>' <jpbarton at princeton.edu<mailto:jpbarton at princeton.edu>>
Subject: Re: 340 field in bib. records for books of the machine-press era

By the way, thanks a lot for taking this on, Iris.

~Kate

[Saint Louis University]

Kate S. Moriarty, MSW, MLS

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Rare Book Catalog Librarian, Professor

Saint Louis University

Pius XII Memorial Library

3650 Lindell Blvd., #320-2, St. Louis, MO 63108

314-977-3024

kate.moriarty at slu.edu<mailto:kate.moriarty at slu.edu>
http://lib.slu.edu/special-collections

________________________________

From: Kate Moriarty <kate.moriarty at slu.edu<mailto:kate.moriarty at slu.edu>>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 1:03 PM
To: Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu<mailto:DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu>>; 'Moody, Honor M.' <honor_moody at harvard.edu<mailto:honor_moody at harvard.edu>>; 'Lapka, Francis' <francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>>; 'Iris' <Iris.O'Brien at bl.uk<mailto:Iris.O%27Brien at bl.uk>>; 'noah.sheola at bc.edu<mailto:noah.sheola at bc.edu>' <noah.sheola at bc.edu<mailto:noah.sheola at bc.edu>>; 'Richard_Noble at brown.edu<mailto:Richard_Noble at brown.edu>' <Richard_Noble at brown.edu<mailto:Richard_Noble at brown.edu>>; 'dezel002 at umn.edu<mailto:dezel002 at umn.edu>' <dezel002 at umn.edu<mailto:dezel002 at umn.edu>>; 'marseidl at vassar.edu<mailto:marseidl at vassar.edu>' <marseidl at vassar.edu<mailto:marseidl at vassar.edu>>; 'jpbarton at princeton.edu<mailto:jpbarton at princeton.edu>' <jpbarton at princeton.edu<mailto:jpbarton at princeton.edu>>
Subject: Re: 340 field in bib. records for books of the machine-press era

I also like the approach of stripping 340s from records not explicitly coded dcrmb, dcrb, etc.

~Kate

[Saint Louis University]

Kate S. Moriarty, MSW, MLS

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Rare Book Catalog Librarian, Professor

Saint Louis University

Pius XII Memorial Library

3650 Lindell Blvd., #320-2, St. Louis, MO 63108

314-977-3024

kate.moriarty at slu.edu<mailto:kate.moriarty at slu.edu>
http://lib.slu.edu/special-collections

________________________________

From: Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu<mailto:DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu>>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 12:40 PM
To: 'Moody, Honor M.' <honor_moody at harvard.edu<mailto:honor_moody at harvard.edu>>; 'Lapka, Francis' <francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>>; 'Iris' <Iris.O'Brien at bl.uk<mailto:Iris.O%27Brien at bl.uk>>; 'noah.sheola at bc.edu<mailto:noah.sheola at bc.edu>' <noah.sheola at bc.edu<mailto:noah.sheola at bc.edu>>; 'Richard_Noble at brown.edu<mailto:Richard_Noble at brown.edu>' <Richard_Noble at brown.edu<mailto:Richard_Noble at brown.edu>>; 'dezel002 at umn.edu<mailto:dezel002 at umn.edu>' <dezel002 at umn.edu<mailto:dezel002 at umn.edu>>; 'marseidl at vassar.edu<mailto:marseidl at vassar.edu>' <marseidl at vassar.edu<mailto:marseidl at vassar.edu>>; 'jpbarton at princeton.edu<mailto:jpbarton at princeton.edu>' <jpbarton at princeton.edu<mailto:jpbarton at princeton.edu>>; Kate Moriarty <kate.moriarty at slu.edu<mailto:kate.moriarty at slu.edu>>
Subject: [External] RE: 340 field in bib. records for books of the machine-press era

I like this approach.

______________________

Deborah J Leslie (she/her) | Senior Cataloger | Folger Shakespeare Library | 201 East Capitol Street, S.E. Washington, DC 20003 | djleslie at folger.edu<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu>

From: Moody, Honor M. <honor_moody at harvard.edu<mailto:honor_moody at harvard.edu>>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 November, 2019 13:33
To: Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>>; Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu<mailto:DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu>>; Iris <Iris.O'Brien at bl.uk<mailto:Iris.O%27Brien at bl.uk>>; 'noah.sheola at bc.edu<mailto:noah.sheola at bc.edu>' <noah.sheola at bc.edu<mailto:noah.sheola at bc.edu>>; 'Richard_Noble at brown.edu<mailto:Richard_Noble at brown.edu>' <Richard_Noble at brown.edu<mailto:Richard_Noble at brown.edu>>; 'dezel002 at umn.edu<mailto:dezel002 at umn.edu>' <dezel002 at umn.edu<mailto:dezel002 at umn.edu>>; 'marseidl at vassar.edu<mailto:marseidl at vassar.edu>' <marseidl at vassar.edu<mailto:marseidl at vassar.edu>>; 'jpbarton at princeton.edu<mailto:jpbarton at princeton.edu>' <jpbarton at princeton.edu<mailto:jpbarton at princeton.edu>>; 'kate.moriarty at slu.edu<mailto:kate.moriarty at slu.edu>' <kate.moriarty at slu.edu<mailto:kate.moriarty at slu.edu>>
Subject: RE: 340 field in bib. records for books of the machine-press era

My understanding was that the 340s were automatically generated from data appearing anywhere in 300 (e.g., OCLC #560906518), so presence in the 300 wouldn’t be an indicator of true format.

I think the real challenge is that we really don’t have any way to tease apart legacy data (that may or may not be true), and data of more recent vintage (presumptively true). I’d be inclined to say the 340 should be stripped from all records that aren’t explicitly coded dcrmb/bdrb/etc.

H

From: Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 11:54 AM
To: Moody, Honor M. <honor_moody at harvard.edu<mailto:honor_moody at harvard.edu>>; Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu<mailto:DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu>>; Iris <Iris.O'Brien at bl.uk<mailto:Iris.O%27Brien at bl.uk>>; 'noah.sheola at bc.edu<mailto:noah.sheola at bc.edu>' <noah.sheola at bc.edu<mailto:noah.sheola at bc.edu>>; 'Richard_Noble at brown.edu<mailto:Richard_Noble at brown.edu>' <Richard_Noble at brown.edu<mailto:Richard_Noble at brown.edu>>; 'dezel002 at umn.edu<mailto:dezel002 at umn.edu>' <dezel002 at umn.edu<mailto:dezel002 at umn.edu>>; 'marseidl at vassar.edu<mailto:marseidl at vassar.edu>' <marseidl at vassar.edu<mailto:marseidl at vassar.edu>>; 'jpbarton at princeton.edu<mailto:jpbarton at princeton.edu>' <jpbarton at princeton.edu<mailto:jpbarton at princeton.edu>>; 'kate.moriarty at slu.edu<mailto:kate.moriarty at slu.edu>' <kate.moriarty at slu.edu<mailto:kate.moriarty at slu.edu>>
Subject: RE: 340 field in bib. records for books of the machine-press era

Do BL catalogers currently use (or have they ever used) the 340 to record bibliographic format in its true sense, rather than as an indicator of size? If BL catalogers have only ever used 300 $c to record format, would it make sense to delete all 340 format data except where the 340 data echoes what has been recorded in 300 $c (or where it can be determined that the 340 represents true format)?

-Francis

From: Moody, Honor M. <honor_moody at harvard.edu<mailto:honor_moody at harvard.edu>>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 11:39 AM
To: Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu<mailto:DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu>>; Iris <Iris.O'Brien at bl.uk<mailto:Iris.O%27Brien at bl.uk>>; 'noah.sheola at bc.edu<mailto:noah.sheola at bc.edu>' <noah.sheola at bc.edu<mailto:noah.sheola at bc.edu>>; 'Richard_Noble at brown.edu<mailto:Richard_Noble at brown.edu>' <Richard_Noble at brown.edu<mailto:Richard_Noble at brown.edu>>; Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>>; 'dezel002 at umn.edu<mailto:dezel002 at umn.edu>' <dezel002 at umn.edu<mailto:dezel002 at umn.edu>>; 'marseidl at vassar.edu<mailto:marseidl at vassar.edu>' <marseidl at vassar.edu<mailto:marseidl at vassar.edu>>; 'jpbarton at princeton.edu<mailto:jpbarton at princeton.edu>' <jpbarton at princeton.edu<mailto:jpbarton at princeton.edu>>; 'kate.moriarty at slu.edu<mailto:kate.moriarty at slu.edu>' <kate.moriarty at slu.edu<mailto:kate.moriarty at slu.edu>>
Subject: RE: 340 field in bib. records for books of the machine-press era

I think my bigger concern is that those 340s are based on size indicators more often than not, and are not reliably accurate for older material as format, either. I have had multiple email exchanges with the BL reference team over the years asking them to confirm that the copy described in OCLC as being 8vo or 24mo or what have you are actually something else.

Honor

From: Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu<mailto:DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu>>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 10:58 AM
To: 'O'Brien, Iris' <Iris.O'Brien at bl.uk<mailto:Iris.O%27Brien at bl.uk>>; 'noah.sheola at bc.edu<mailto:noah.sheola at bc.edu>' <noah.sheola at bc.edu<mailto:noah.sheola at bc.edu>>; 'Richard_Noble at brown.edu<mailto:Richard_Noble at brown.edu>' <Richard_Noble at brown.edu<mailto:Richard_Noble at brown.edu>>; 'francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>' <francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>>; 'dezel002 at umn.edu<mailto:dezel002 at umn.edu>' <dezel002 at umn.edu<mailto:dezel002 at umn.edu>>; Moody, Honor M. <honor_moody at harvard.edu<mailto:honor_moody at harvard.edu>>; 'marseidl at vassar.edu<mailto:marseidl at vassar.edu>' <marseidl at vassar.edu<mailto:marseidl at vassar.edu>>; 'jpbarton at princeton.edu<mailto:jpbarton at princeton.edu>' <jpbarton at princeton.edu<mailto:jpbarton at princeton.edu>>; 'kate.moriarty at slu.edu<mailto:kate.moriarty at slu.edu>' <kate.moriarty at slu.edu<mailto:kate.moriarty at slu.edu>>
Subject: RE: 340 field in bib. records for books of the machine-press era

WARNING: Harvard cannot validate this message was sent from an authorized system. Please be careful when opening attachments, clicking links, or following instructions. For more information, visit the HUIT IT Portal and search for SPF.

________________________________

Iris, that sounds like a good solution. I would lobby for an 1830 cut-off date, which aligns with the scope of such projects as the Heritage of the Printed Book database, and major collections such as the Folger Shakespeare Library. (-;

______________________

Deborah J Leslie (she/her) | Senior Cataloger | Folger Shakespeare Library | 201 East Capitol Street, S.E. Washington, DC 20003 | djleslie at folger.edu<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu>

From: O'Brien, Iris <Iris.O'Brien at bl.uk<mailto:Iris.O%27Brien at bl.uk>>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 November, 2019 10:44
To: noah.sheola at bc.edu<mailto:noah.sheola at bc.edu>; Richard_Noble at brown.edu<mailto:Richard_Noble at brown.edu>; francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>; dezel002 at umn.edu<mailto:dezel002 at umn.edu>; honor_moody at harvard.edu<mailto:honor_moody at harvard.edu>; marseidl at vassar.edu<mailto:marseidl at vassar.edu>; jpbarton at princeton.edu<mailto:jpbarton at princeton.edu>; kate.moriarty at slu.edu<mailto:kate.moriarty at slu.edu>; Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu<mailto:DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu>>
Subject: 340 field in bib. records for books of the machine-press era

Dear Colleagues,

I am contacting you because you participated in the DCRM-L discussions that touched upon the issue of the 340 field for bibliographic format appearing in bibliographic records for books of the machine-press era in Worldcat. As you will probably know by now, the field was introduced as part of an ill-judged batch upload to all existing British Library legacy records, which then filtered through to OCLC.

After some lobbying on my side, the British Library is now considering deleting the 340 bibliographic format field in records for books of the machine-press era; I will be writing a work request to have the field removed but the question now is what the cut-off date should be. My suggestion would be to delete the field for everything published after 1850 but I would like to get some feedback on this to make sure the rare books community is happy with the outcome.

As the fact that the British Library created this mess in the first place is a slightly delicate matter, I am trying to avoid the DCRM-L list for this discussion but I am hoping that we can discuss this among this smaller group.

However, if you can think of any other ways of getting feedback on this without causing too much public exposure of the issue, then please let me know.

Just to give you an idea of the volume of this: if we chose a cut-off date of 1850, i.e. the field would be removed in records for everything published after 1850, we would be looking at amending over 2,838,000 records.

Thanks for your help.

Kind regards,

Iris O’Brien

------------------------------------------------------

Iris O'Brien

Early Printed Collections Cataloguing and Processing Manager

The British Library

St Pancras

96 Euston Road

London

NW1 2DB

Tel.: +44 (0)20 7412 7731

E-mail: iris.o'brien at bl.uk<mailto:iris.o%27brien at bl.uk>

******************************************************************************************************************

Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Furldefense.proofpoint.com-252Fv2-252Furl-253Fu-253Dhttp-2D3A-5F-5Fwww.bl.uk-5F-2526d-253DDwMGaQ-2526c-253DWO-2DRGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ-2526r-253DgfxDZP5m9KyeWhmono1ADELcLUOEQEwGHybTpd5N2Wk-2526m-253Du5Zs0f5RddYXs0B1sFss0LVCRl1yb0pYQVKiI-5FB0Elo-2526s-253DcR3UcWTsLeFCIweCMtuGHr4jn-2DyBYuAdxrjZKl2yorw-2526e-253D-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cfrancis.lapka-2540yale.edu-257Caa0a27d56c8e42fa6fc508d76857edbd-257Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c-257C0-257C0-257C637092599178092413-26sdata-3DUUrlujF4msIZZiv6figIReKVXqyh5ZlhsIfS-252F0bW0bQ-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=gfxDZP5m9KyeWhmono1ADELcLUOEQEwGHybTpd5N2Wk&m=SAyxB7WJSQCykMWPWBr5hJ5BVH44gd_vY56uo6MCP3s&s=6ZR7MMxPaR-IBz5HI48WXUXdE3NuI0tBl1AclV_Yhvk&e=>

The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Furldefense.proofpoint.com-252Fv2-252Furl-253Fu-253Dhttp-2D3A-5F-5Fwww.bl.uk-5Faboutus-5Fannrep-5Findex.html-2526d-253DDwMGaQ-2526c-253DWO-2DRGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ-2526r-253DgfxDZP5m9KyeWhmono1ADELcLUOEQEwGHybTpd5N2Wk-2526m-253Du5Zs0f5RddYXs0B1sFss0LVCRl1yb0pYQVKiI-5FB0Elo-2526s-253D-2Dfi0m5Jb7JzMyIRPBUKVCmXHQNV60p87YlDZ8aJHWS8-2526e-253D-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cfrancis.lapka-2540yale.edu-257Caa0a27d56c8e42fa6fc508d76857edbd-257Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c-257C0-257C0-257C637092599178102409-26sdata-3D7eUNohvk6qXjH-252FGffyxjJ2B-252B1XQwQz3YaCUmfl7cffI-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=gfxDZP5m9KyeWhmono1ADELcLUOEQEwGHybTpd5N2Wk&m=SAyxB7WJSQCykMWPWBr5hJ5BVH44gd_vY56uo6MCP3s&s=zzE4EalK9MU8TCj23a1wOOV26qBtSXy45kGe-8JHafU&e=>

Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Furldefense.proofpoint.com-252Fv2-252Furl-253Fu-253Dhttp-2D3A-5F-5Fwww.bl.uk-5Fadoptabook-2526d-253DDwMGaQ-2526c-253DWO-2DRGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ-2526r-253DgfxDZP5m9KyeWhmono1ADELcLUOEQEwGHybTpd5N2Wk-2526m-253Du5Zs0f5RddYXs0B1sFss0LVCRl1yb0pYQVKiI-5FB0Elo-2526s-253D3dzSJV2Xw2Nll1JWh7svt1AZZwmsHtZycEZUfq1zubk-2526e-253D-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cfrancis.lapka-2540yale.edu-257Caa0a27d56c8e42fa6fc508d76857edbd-257Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c-257C0-257C0-257C637092599178102409-26sdata-3Dp-252F0B0KzOd0nOYVOr89h5Egm6Mgjpe5ZKvmRXFQ-252FkcGg-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=gfxDZP5m9KyeWhmono1ADELcLUOEQEwGHybTpd5N2Wk&m=SAyxB7WJSQCykMWPWBr5hJ5BVH44gd_vY56uo6MCP3s&s=UpEDGr7TPnYv9_J0OxcblGgGcARP4y6yR3yQinRO3NQ&e=>

The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled

*****************************************************************************************************************

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the postmaster at bl.uk<mailto:postmaster at bl.uk> : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.

The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.

*****************************************************************************************************************

Think before you print
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20191115/b3f33d0e/attachment-0001.html>