[DCRM-L] Authors' inscriptions

[Noble, Richard]

Local information in master records is worse than clutter. It's a basic
principle that copy-specific information should not be included. For any
other institution using the record it is *mis*information that has to be
edited out at the local level, which complicates copy cataloging. In other
discussions it's been advised that a cataloger revising a master record
should delete any purely copy-specific notes and access points. There can
be exceptions, especially in rare materials records, where copy-specific
information may serve as evidence regarding production, distribution etc.
of the entity described in the master record. In such cases a 500 note with
$5 as a kind of institutional signature is appropriate, and perhaps 655
from a controlled vocabulary.

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, Jan 30, 2020 at 8:22 PM Gemberling, Ted P <tgemberl at uab.edu> wrote:

> Anne,
>
> Please do not put a 500 on the OCLC master record unless, maybe, you have
> one of two existing copies of the book. I think it just creates clutter to
> add local notes on master records, especially related to provenance matters
> like this. If it has something to do with the descriptive cataloging of the
> item (say pagination), then it makes more sense to put it on the master
> record.
>
>
>
> Not sure what to say about the RBMS heading. I would say if it is an
> inscription you don’t need to add Autograph, because one can usually assume
> that an inscription will be signed. As for the difference between
> presentation inscriptions and inscriptions, that is difficult. I don’t
> think I’ve seen a lot of inscriptions that couldn’t be called presentation
> inscriptions, though I’m sure they do exist.
>
>
>
> Christopher’s point is a good one. Sometimes you have a copy that you know
> was presented by the author to someone though there is no handwritten
> inscription. Presentation copy is the best heading for that.
>
>
>
> Ted Gemberling
>
> UAB Libraries
>
>
>
> *From:* DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> *On Behalf Of *Anne Newnham
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 30, 2020 7:07 PM
> *To:* dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
> *Subject:* [DCRM-L] Authors' inscriptions
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I really need some advice from the experts.
>
>
>
> I’m still not sure about the difference between
>
>
>
> Authors' autographs (Provenance), and
>
> Authors' inscriptions (Provenance) and
>
> Authors' presentation inscriptions (Provenance)
>
>
>
> For example, we have a copy of a book inscribed “I shall always thank you,
> Mr. Harvey, for your kind encouragement,  Love and best wishes”, and signed
> by the author.
>
>
>
> Should I create a 655 field with one of the 3 terms listed above (or
> something else)?
>
> Should I create a 700 field with the relator term $e autographer, $e
> inscriber, (or something else)?
>
>
>
> And lastly, should I put this information on the OCLC copy of the record,
> or just on our local copy? And if on the OCLC copy, should I add a 500 note
> to justify them?  I will definitely have a 500 note in our local copy.
>
>
>
> Thanks in anticipation.
>
>
>
> Anne Newnham
>
> Metadata Specialist
>
> University of Auckland Library
> Auckland, New Zealand
> a.newnham at auckland.ac.nz
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20200131/84bed36c/attachment.html>