[DCRM-L] Cataloging Question Regarding Lithographs (Text)
Deborah J. Leslie
DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu
Sat Mar 8 21:17:13 MST 2025
I concur with everything Jessica says.
______________________
Deborah J Leslie [cid:582099a1-a9ae-4f11-a6a2-e5fea8457b7f] , M.A., M.L.S. | Senior Cataloger | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> | Opinions her own
________________________________
From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> on behalf of Jessica Grzegorski via DCRM-L <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 7, 2025 13:22
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Cc: Jessica Grzegorski <jessica.grzegorski at northwestern.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Cataloging Question Regarding Lithographs (Text)
Hi Sarah,
Without seeing the materials in front of me, my best guess is that you have either a facsimile edition or a regular monograph that includes reproductions of manuscript material. Neither case falls neatly into the category of a regular print reproduction (e.g., photocopy). Instead, treat it as a typical monograph. This means that the date in the fixed field and MARC 264 $c would be for the publication date of the lithographed edition rather than for the production date of the original ms. You can include details about the ms. production date (if known) in a general 500 note.
You are correct that you would not need a 590 note in this case. Some possible 500 notes include:
500 Lithographic reproduction of an annotated manuscript.
500 Lithographic reproduction of annotated manuscript originally produced in [YEAR].
Note that this is not considered a reprint. Reprints refer to previously published resources, and not to manuscripts (which are considered unpublished in their original state) that are later published, whether in facsimile or letterpress.
If the materials you have in hand seem closer to a regular print reproduction that is more like a photocopy, I suggest following OCLC’s guidelines on photocopies<https://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/about/specialcataloging.html#photocopiesandprintondemandreproductions> in conjunction with the LC-PCC Policy Statement for 1.11<http://original.rdatoolkit.org/lcpschp1_lcps1-99044.html> in the original RDA Toolkit.
Best,
Jessica
Jessica Grzegorski (she/her/hers)
Rare Materials Metadata Librarian
Acquisitions and Metadata Services
Northwestern University Libraries
Northwestern University
www.library.northwestern.edu
jessica.grzegorski at northwestern.edu<mailto:jessica.grzegorski at northwestern.edu>
847.467.6966
In the spirit of healing, we acknowledge and honor the Potawatomi, Odawa and Ojibwe Tribes, the original people of the land upon which Northwestern University stands, and the Native people who remain on this land today.
From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> On Behalf Of Sarah Abdel Malak via DCRM-L
Sent: Friday, March 7, 2025 4:31 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Cc: Sarah Abdel Malak <sarah.abdelmalak at usek.edu.lb>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Cataloging Question Regarding Lithographs (Text)
Dear Jessica and Deborah,
I hope you are both well.
I am writing to clarify some information regarding the annotations in the lithographed book I currently have in hand. The book is a lithograph of a manuscript, and it is entirely printed using lithographic methods, including the annotations and explanations, which are an integral part of the lithographed text.
Given this, I believe the 590-note concerning the USEK copy (or Library copy) is no longer necessary. The best practice would be to merge this information into a single 500 general note. Is there a specific note I should use to mention that the book is a copy of a lithographed manuscript?
Examples:
500 Printed as a lithographed manuscript, including annotations and explanations, all of which are part of the lithographed text. (Single 500 general note example)
500 Lithographed reproduction of manuscript (Lithographed manuscript 500 general note example)
Additionally, my question is whether I should treat this as a printed book and catalog it as such or treat it as a manuscript and add a note that it is printed as a lithograph. If considered a printed book, what specific fields should I add to the bibliographic record to differentiate it from other books and from the original copy of the manuscript? (other than 500 note, and 340 $d physical medium -information recording technique).
Thank you so much for your time and assistance. I truly appreciate your guidance on this matter.
Best regards
Sarah
Sarah Abdel Malak
Cataloging Department
Holy Spirit University of Kaslik (USEK)
Lebanon
From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>> On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie via DCRM-L
Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2025 9:51 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Cc: Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu<mailto:DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu>>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Cataloging Question Regarding Lithographs (Text)
Please note that if using DCRM, the 590 notes below need to specify which library's copy is being described. For instance, in your catalog the note might read:
590 USEK copy has manuscript annotations.
Even if not using DCRM, it's always a good idea to specify the repository for copy-specific notes.
______________________
Deborah J Leslie [cid:image001.png at 01DB8F56.0F8ADDC0] , M.A., M.L.S. | Senior Cataloger | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> | Opinions her own
________________________________
From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>> on behalf of Jessica Grzegorski via DCRM-L <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2025 09:39
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Cc: Jessica Grzegorski <jessica.grzegorski at northwestern.edu<mailto:jessica.grzegorski at northwestern.edu>>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Cataloging Question Regarding Lithographs (Text)
Hi Sarah,
When constructing these notes, there really is no difference between RDA and the DCRM manuals. Some examples include:
500 Printed lithographically.
500 Entirely lithographed.
When you mention annotations, I assume that they are handwritten and specific to your copy only? If that is the case, those notes should be separate from the above notes with a clear indication that they are copy specific. Once again, there really is no difference between the wording of the notes in RDA vs. DCRM. Depending on your local system, you may choose to use a MARC 590 field or a 500 field with $5 indicating your institution code. Some institutions also use a 561 field with $5 for notes related to provenance (which can include annotations). Others may include all of the copy-specific information in the holdings record in their local systems rather than in the bibliographic record. Again, this really depends on your local system and local practices.
Some possibilities include:
590 Library copy has manuscript annotations.
590 Library copy has bibliographical notes in pencil.
500 Library copy annotated in red ink. $5 [your institution code]
500 Library copy has inscription dated 1822. $5 [your institution code]
Note that there are many possibilities for local notes. The most important thing is to clearly indicate that they are specific to your copy.
Best,
Jessica
Jessica Grzegorski (she/her/hers)
Rare Materials Metadata Librarian
Acquisitions and Metadata Services
Northwestern University Libraries
Northwestern University
www.library.northwestern.edu<http://www.library.northwestern.edu/>
jessica.grzegorski at northwestern.edu<mailto:jessica.grzegorski at northwestern.edu>
847.467.6966
In the spirit of healing, we acknowledge and honor the Potawatomi, Odawa and Ojibwe Tribes, the original people of the land upon which Northwestern University stands, and the Native people who remain on this land today.
From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>> On Behalf Of Sarah Abdel Malak via DCRM-L
Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2025 1:46 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Cc: Sarah Abdel Malak <sarah.abdelmalak at usek.edu.lb<mailto:sarah.abdelmalak at usek.edu.lb>>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Cataloging Question Regarding Lithographs (Text)
Hi Jessica,
Thank you for the valuable information you provided. I appreciate your time and effort in helping me with this.
I would like to kindly ask if you could provide some examples of a 500-note for lithographs in general, as well as a 500-note specifically to describe lithographs that contain annotations (notes based on RDA (Resource Description and Access) and DCRM (Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials) guidelines for lithographs.
Looking forward to your response.
Best regards,
Sarah Abdel Malak
Cataloging Department
Holy Spirit University of Kaslik (USEK-Lebanon)
From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>> On Behalf Of Jessica Grzegorski via DCRM-L
Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 4:44 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Cc: Jessica Grzegorski <jessica.grzegorski at northwestern.edu<mailto:jessica.grzegorski at northwestern.edu>>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Cataloging Question Regarding Lithographs (Text)
Hi Sarah,
In addition to noting that the materials were printed using lithography in a MARC 500 field, you may also consider using 340 $d<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/3xx/340.html*subfieldd__;Iw!!Dq0X2DkFhyF93HkjWTBQKhk!QfT8Hy4HB3Mu8ejAJjfmi3GPvR5zf4ZDklrpAE38MDaZliz79dbJp1B0uoT5mDps8BP7NpudqfZMA5iEzNQvD0L4-I_2Zkvd2w$> (physical medium > information recording technique). The term “lithography” is available for use in the RDA Production Method<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rdaregistry.info/termList/RDAproductionMethod/__;!!Dq0X2DkFhyF93HkjWTBQKhk!QfT8Hy4HB3Mu8ejAJjfmi3GPvR5zf4ZDklrpAE38MDaZliz79dbJp1B0uoT5mDps8BP7NpudqfZMA5iEzNQvD0L4-I-A4vWvJg$> vocabulary. The 340 would then look like this:
340 $d lithography $2 rdapm
It may also be possible to use a 655 genre term “Lithographs,” but I would hesitate to do this for text-only lithographs. Lithographs are considered prints in Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms (lcgft), Thesaurus for Graphic Materials (gmgpc), and Art & Architecture Thesaurus (aat), which implies that they are graphic, rather than solely textual, materials. The scope of LCGFT might provide the most wiggle room for applying “Lithographs” to text-only lithographs, but consider your collection holistically before applying it.
Best,
Jessica
Jessica Grzegorski (she/her/hers)
Rare Materials Metadata Librarian
Acquisitions and Metadata Services
Northwestern University Libraries
Northwestern University
www.library.northwestern.edu<http://www.library.northwestern.edu/>
jessica.grzegorski at northwestern.edu<mailto:jessica.grzegorski at northwestern.edu>
847.467.6966
In the spirit of healing, we acknowledge and honor the Potawatomi, Odawa and Ojibwe Tribes, the original people of the land upon which Northwestern University stands, and the Native people who remain on this land today.
From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>> On Behalf Of Sarah Abdel Malak via DCRM-L
Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 2:05 AM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Cc: Sarah Abdel Malak <sarah.abdelmalak at usek.edu.lb<mailto:sarah.abdelmalak at usek.edu.lb>>
Subject: [DCRM-L] Cataloging Question Regarding Lithographs (Text)
Dear [DCRM-L team],
I hope this message finds you well.
I am currently working on cataloging rare books and would like to reach out with a question regarding the cataloging of Lithographs (Text not photos).
Is there a specific field in the metadata where I should indicate "Lithographic Print" under the printing technique or material type?
Additionally, I would appreciate it if you could outline the specific fields that should be used when cataloging lithographs to ensure consistency and accuracy.
Your guidance would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Sarah Abdel Malak
Cataloging Department
Holy Spirit University of Kaslik (USEK-Lebanon)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20250309/a3f1cfca/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1032 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20250309/a3f1cfca/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Outlook-bf2i5nzm.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1032 bytes
Desc: Outlook-bf2i5nzm.png
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20250309/a3f1cfca/attachment-0003.png>
More information about the DCRM-L
mailing list