[DCRM-L] Authors' inscriptions

[Jessica Janecki]

I have to say, in those sorts of cases where local information was used in creating the master record I say something like “Date of publication estimated from dated inscription in [Cataloging Agency] copy.” and make it a regular 500 note.

Jessica Janecki

From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 10:16 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Authors' inscriptions

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 misinformation 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<mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__own.edu&d=DwMFaQ&c=imBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc&r=syBsD9wdK9qbcbzV6L7LBDioGeBDJPoOLT41UkKlSOw&m=rgkgPOrrHHDK7DwM_HmqkVf4OWBjX4YXhc07sLGRzg4&s=RBT9gUx7waxNtVvOHW-3K9o9aa1jRiKxES7dTTGGdPg&e=>>


On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 8:22 PM Gemberling, Ted P <tgemberl at uab.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:a.newnham at auckland.ac.nz>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20200131/0d8e1b85/attachment-0001.html>