>Subject: [DCRB-L] Main entry for collectors
>
>Main entry for collection-level cataloging
>
>Once again, I apologize for forgetting to discuss the proposed DCRM(B)
appendix on collection-level cataloging. The editors (John Attig, Bob
Maxwell, Joe Springer, Manon Théroux, and me) did discuss it during our
day and a half meeting after the conference in San Diego. The issue of
collector main entry is one we would like to address sooner rather than
later.
>
>I don't have the CSB on collection-level records in front of me, but
whether or not I'm right in assuming that the instruction for giving the
collector the main entry came from there, the editors need to be
persuaded that this is appropriate for the cataloging of printed
materials. Section D on "Elements of the catalog record", a) on 1XX
field: Main entry heading starts out well by emphasizing that title main
entry is appropriate for many collections, and for requiring that all
items comprised by the collection record have the same personal or
corporate authorship. This is in compliance with AACR2.
>
>We question the 2nd paragraph of section a) instructing that if a
collection is known by the name of a collector, generally enter that
name in a 1xx field. The editors are considering deleting that
provision. Naturally in such a case, the collector may be entered in a
7xx field. Those of you with persuasive and/or passionate opinions
please give us your best shot. To DCRB-L please, so everyone can
participate in the discussion.
>________________________
>
>Deborah J. Leslie
>
>Folger Library
>
>djleslie@folger.edu
>
>
>
>
>
---------End of Included Message----------
Jackie Dooley, Head, Special Collections & Archives
UC Irvine Libraries, P.O. Box 19557
Irvine, CA 92623-9557
phone: 949/824-4935
fax: 949/824-2472
email: jmdooley@uci.edu
--smms-1.1.2-8091c10
Content-Type: IMAGE/JPEG; name="image001.jpg"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64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--smms-1.1.2-8091c10--
From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Thu Jan 22 14:34:01 2004
From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Sarah Schmidt Fisher)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:34:01 -0500
Subject: [DCRB-L] Main entry for collectors
References: <88539F4A9A5C3041B06A234AA2ABDB58015D9ECD@portia.folger.edu>
Message-ID: <400FDF59.1010302@udel.edu>
Deborah,
According to the CSB, the rule comes from APPM. A quick look at APPM shows 2.1A4
Artificial collections, the relevant sentence being: "A collection of archival
material that has been artificially accumulated around a person, subject...is entered
under the heading for the person chiefly responsible for the creation of the
collection as such." (p. 40) I think this is why it was included in the appendix,
section a, second paragraph, however, I personally agree with deleting the section or
moving it to section j, 7xx field with the appropriate rewording. Perhaps someone who
catalogs more archival collections can make the argument for main entry?
My two cents,
Sarah Fisher
slsf@udel.edu
Deborah J. Leslie wrote:
> Main entry for collection-level cataloging
>
>
>
> Once again, I apologize for forgetting to discuss the proposed DCRM(B)
> appendix on collection-level cataloging. The editors (John Attig, Bob
> Maxwell, Joe Springer, Manon Théroux, and me) did discuss it during our
> day and a half meeting after the conference in San Diego. The issue of
> collector main entry is one we would like to address sooner rather than
> later.
>
>
>
> I don't have the CSB on collection-level records in front of me, but
> whether or not I'm right in assuming that the instruction for giving the
> collector the main entry came from there, the editors need to be
> persuaded that this is appropriate for the cataloging of printed
> materials. Section D on "Elements of the catalog record", a) on 1XX
> field: Main entry heading starts out well by emphasizing that title main
> entry is appropriate for many collections, and for requiring that all
> items comprised by the collection record have the same personal or
> corporate authorship. This is in compliance with AACR2.
>
>
>
> We question the 2nd paragraph of section a) instructing that if a
> collection is known by the name of a collector, generally enter that
> name in a 1xx field. The editors are considering deleting that
> provision. Naturally in such a case, the collector may be entered in a
> 7xx field. Those of you with persuasive and/or passionate opinions
> please give us your best shot. To DCRB-L please, so everyone can
> participate in the discussion.
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________
>
> Deborah J. Leslie
>
> Folger Library
>
> djleslie@folger.edu
>
>
>
--
Sarah S. Fisher
Senior Assistant Librarian
Bibliographic Control Dept.
University of Delaware Library
Newark, DE 19717-5267
(302)831-1512
(302)831-1046 (fax)
slsf@udel.edu
From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Thu Jan 22 18:22:04 2004
From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Beth Russell)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:22:04 -0500
Subject: [DCRB-L] Main entry for collectors
In-Reply-To: <88539F4A9A5C3041B06A234AA2ABDB58015D9ECD@portia.folger.edu>
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20040122125644.00b607d8@pop.service.ohio-state.edu>
--Boundary_(ID_w42YwIQXjwJA+OVRdwMZgA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Others more knowledgeable than myself have already described the importance=
=20
of "collector" main entry. I don't know if my contribution is persuasive,=20
but it is passionately held!
From a purely theoretical point of view, the "collector" is in fact, the=20
CREATOR of the collection, which is the ITEM being cataloged. There is only=
=20
one item being cataloged in a collection-level record (the collection) and=
=20
if one individual is responsible for assembling its contents in its current=
=20
state, this activity surely merits main entry, so long as we maintain the=20
concept of main entry in our cataloging rules. If one were cataloging a=20
scrapbook, for example, the compiler of the scrapbook would play the same=20
role (and "deserve" main entry in the same way) although the individual=20
components of the scrapbook (newspaper clippings, programs, photos, etc.)=20
would have originated from many different sources (which might be traced=20
themselves in 6xx or 7xx fields.)
It also bears restating that both APPM rule 2.1A4 and our draft guidelines=
=20
call for the addition of the term "collector" after the main entry in these=
=20
cases, which should clarify the role for anyone who is perplexed in looking=
=20
at these records. One would also hope there would be some explanatory note=
=20
in the body of the collection record, if necessary. Perhaps in our=20
discussion of field 545 (biographical or historical note) or 520 / 505=20
(summary or contents) we could provide an example to illustrate this, along=
=20
the lines of my completely spontaneous italicized addition to the example=20
below:
520 Consists principally of maps of the United States as a whole. Also=
=20
includes maps of sections of the United States and individual states and=20
cities, showing railroads or railroad related information. The collection=20
was assembled by John Smith in the mid 19th century, and includes materials=
=20
collected during his business travels. $b Includes some maps of London=20
environs, western Canada, and Europe.
Beth
At 05:05 PM 1/21/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>Main entry for collection-level cataloging
>
>
>
>Once again, I apologize for forgetting to discuss the proposed DCRM(B)=20
>appendix on collection-level cataloging. The editors (John Attig, Bob=20
>Maxwell, Joe Springer, Manon Th=E9roux, and me) did discuss it during our=
=20
>day and a half meeting after the conference in San Diego. The issue of=20
>collector main entry is one we would like to address sooner rather than=
later.
>
>
>
>I don't have the CSB on collection-level records in front of me, but=20
>whether or not I'm right in assuming that the instruction for giving the=20
>collector the main entry came from there, the editors need to be persuaded=
=20
>that this is appropriate for the cataloging of printed materials. Section=
=20
>D on "Elements of the catalog record", a) on 1XX field: Main entry heading=
=20
>starts out well by emphasizing that title main entry is appropriate for=20
>many collections, and for requiring that all items comprised by the=20
>collection record have the same personal or corporate authorship. This is=
=20
>in compliance with AACR2.
>
>
>
>We question the 2nd paragraph of section a) instructing that if a=20
>collection is known by the name of a collector, generally enter that name=
=20
>in a 1xx field. The editors are considering deleting that provision.=20
>Naturally in such a case, the collector may be entered in a 7xx field.=20
>Those of you with persuasive and/or passionate opinions please give us=20
>your best shot. To DCRB-L please, so everyone can participate in the=20
>discussion.
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________
>
>Deborah J. Leslie
>
>Folger Library
>
>djleslie@folger.edu
>
>
>
----------------------
Beth M. Russell
Head, Special Collections Cataloging
Assistant Professor
The Ohio State University Libraries
1858 Neil Avenue Mall
Columbus OH 43210-1286
614-247-7463
FAX 614-292-2015
russell.363@osu.edu
----------------------
--Boundary_(ID_w42YwIQXjwJA+OVRdwMZgA)
Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Others more knowledgeable than myself have already described the
importance of "collector" main entry. I don't know if my
contribution is persuasive, but it is passionately held!
From a purely theoretical point of view, the "collector" is in
fact, the CREATOR of the collection, which is the ITEM being cataloged.
There is only one item being cataloged in a collection-level record (the
collection) and if one individual is responsible for assembling its
contents in its current state, this activity surely merits main entry, so
long as we maintain the concept of main entry in our cataloging rules. If
one were cataloging a scrapbook, for example, the compiler of the
scrapbook would play the same role (and "deserve" main entry in
the same way) although the individual components of the scrapbook
(newspaper clippings, programs, photos, etc.) would have originated from
many different sources (which might be traced themselves in 6xx or 7xx
fields.)
It also bears restating that both APPM rule 2.1A4 and our draft
guidelines call for the addition of the term "collector" after
the main entry in these cases, which should clarify the role for anyone
who is perplexed in looking at these records. One would also hope there
would be some explanatory note in the body of the collection record, if
necessary. Perhaps in our discussion of field 545 (biographical or
historical note) or 520 / 505 (summary or contents) we could provide an
example to illustrate this, along the lines of my completely spontaneous
italicized addition to the example below:
- 520 Consists principally of maps of the
United States as a whole. Also includes maps of sections of the United
States and individual states and cities, showing railroads or railroad
related information. The collection was assembled by John Smith in the
mid 19th century, and includes materials collected during his business
travels. $b Includes some maps of London environs, western Canada,
and Europe.
Beth
At 05:05 PM 1/21/2004 -0500, you wrote:
Main entry for
collection-level cataloging
Once again, I apologize for forgetting to
discuss the proposed DCRM(B) appendix on collection-level cataloging. The
editors (John Attig, Bob Maxwell, Joe Springer, Manon Th=E9roux, and me)
did discuss it during our day and a half meeting after the conference in
San Diego. The issue of collector main entry is one we would like to
address sooner rather than later.
I don't have the CSB on collection-level
records in front of me, but whether or not I'm right in assuming that the
instruction for giving the collector the main entry came from there, the
editors need to be persuaded that this is appropriate for the cataloging
of printed materials. Section D on "Elements of the catalog
record", a) on 1XX field: Main entry heading starts out well
by emphasizing that title main entry is appropriate for many collections,
and for requiring that all items comprised by the collection record have
the same personal or corporate authorship. This is in compliance with
AACR2.
We question the 2nd paragraph of section
a) instructing that if a collection is known by the name of a collector,
generally enter that name in a 1xx field. The editors are considering
deleting that provision. Naturally in such a case, the collector may be
entered in a 7xx field. Those of you with persuasive and/or passionate
opinions please give us your best shot. To DCRB-L please, so everyone can
participate in the discussion.
________________________
Deborah J. Leslie
Folger Library
djleslie@folger.edu
----------------------
Beth M. Russell
Head, Special Collections Cataloging
Assistant Professor
The Ohio State University Libraries
1858 Neil Avenue Mall
Columbus OH 43210-1286
614-247-7463
FAX 614-292-2015
russell.363@osu.edu
----------------------
--Boundary_(ID_w42YwIQXjwJA+OVRdwMZgA)--
From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Thu Jan 22 18:48:27 2004
From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Jackie Dooley)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:48:27 -0800
Subject: [DCRB-L] Russell on Main entry for collectors
References: <4.3.2.7.2.20040122125644.00b607d8@pop.service.ohio-state.edu>
Message-ID: <40101AFB.28A49D9D@lib.uci.edu>
Beth, a superb rendition of the archival thinking on this topic. Thanks!
-Jackie
Beth Russell wrote:
Others more knowledgeable than myself have
already described the importance of "collector" main entry. I don't know
if my contribution is persuasive, but it is passionately held!
From a purely theoretical point of view, the "collector" is in fact,
the CREATOR of the collection, which is the ITEM being cataloged. There
is only one item being cataloged in a collection-level record (the collection)
and if one individual is responsible for assembling its contents in its
current state, this activity surely merits main entry, so long as we maintain
the concept of main entry in our cataloging rules. If one were cataloging
a scrapbook, for example, the compiler of the scrapbook would play the
same role (and "deserve" main entry in the same way) although the individual
components of the scrapbook (newspaper clippings, programs, photos, etc.)
would have originated from many different sources (which might be traced
themselves in 6xx or 7xx fields.)
It also bears restating that both APPM rule 2.1A4 and our draft guidelines
call for the addition of the term "collector" after the main entry in these
cases, which should clarify the role for anyone who is perplexed in looking
at these records. One would also hope there would be some explanatory note
in the body of the collection record, if necessary. Perhaps in our discussion
of field 545 (biographical or historical note) or 520 / 505 (summary or
contents) we could provide an example to illustrate this, along the lines
of my completely spontaneous italicized addition to the example below:
-
520 Consists
principally of maps of the United States as a whole. Also includes maps
of sections of the United States and individual states and cities, showing
railroads or railroad related information. The collection was assembled
by John Smith in the mid 19th century, and includes materials collected
during his business travels. $b Includes some maps of London environs,
western Canada, and Europe.
Beth
At 05:05 PM 1/21/2004 -0500, you wrote:
Main entry for
collection-level cataloging
Once again, I apologize for forgetting
to discuss the proposed DCRM(B) appendix on collection-level cataloging.
The editors (John Attig, Bob Maxwell, Joe Springer, Manon Théroux,
and me) did discuss it during our day and a half meeting after the conference
in San Diego. The issue of collector main entry is one we would like to
address sooner rather than later.
I don't have the CSB on collection-level
records in front of me, but whether or not I'm right in assuming that the
instruction for giving the collector the main entry came from there, the
editors need to be persuaded that this is appropriate for the cataloging
of printed materials. Section D on "Elements of the catalog record", a)
on 1XX field: Main entry heading starts out well by emphasizing
that title main entry is appropriate for many collections, and for requiring
that all items comprised by the collection record have the same personal
or corporate authorship. This is in compliance with AACR2.
We question the 2nd paragraph of section
a) instructing that if a collection is known by the name of a collector,
generally enter that name in a 1xx field. The editors are considering deleting
that provision. Naturally in such a case, the collector may be entered
in a 7xx field. Those of you with persuasive and/or passionate opinions
please give us your best shot. To DCRB-L please, so everyone can participate
in the discussion.
________________________
Deborah J. Leslie
Folger Library
djleslie@folger.edu
----------------------Beth M. RussellHead, Special Collections CatalogingAssistant
ProfessorThe Ohio State University Libraries1858 Neil Avenue MallColumbus
OH 43210-1286614-247-7463FAX 614-292-2015russell.363@osu.edu----------------------
--
Jackie M. Dooley, Head of Special
Collections and Archives
UCI Libraries, P.O. Box 19557, Univ. of California, Irvine, CA 92623-9557
Internet: jmdooley@uci.edu Phone: 949/824-4935
Fax: 949/824-2472
From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Thu Jan 22 18:54:55 2004
From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (R. Arvid Nelsen)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:54:55 -0800
Subject: [DCRB-L] Main entry for collectors
Message-ID:
Thanks for this clear line of argumentation. I was debating with myself
the need for a follow-up to Jackie's e-mail, whose argument was merely
we can be foreward thinking or backward, without a clear argument of the
merits of or need for the main entry. I also think some explanation is
required to counteract the argument also put forth that the statement is
taken from APPM and therefore (?) can be dropped.
Kudos!
Arvid
R. Arvid Nelsen
Special Collections Cataloger
University of California, San Diego
Mandeville Special Collections Library, 0175S
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla, CA 92093-0175
858/534-6766
>>> russell.363@osu.edu 01/22/04 10:22AM >>>
Others more knowledgeable than myself have already described the
importance
of "collector" main entry. I don't know if my contribution is
persuasive,
but it is passionately held!
From a purely theoretical point of view, the "collector" is in fact,
the
CREATOR of the collection, which is the ITEM being cataloged. There is
only
one item being cataloged in a collection-level record (the collection)
and
if one individual is responsible for assembling its contents in its
current
state, this activity surely merits main entry, so long as we maintain
the
concept of main entry in our cataloging rules. If one were cataloging a
scrapbook, for example, the compiler of the scrapbook would play the
same
role (and "deserve" main entry in the same way) although the individual
components of the scrapbook (newspaper clippings, programs, photos,
etc.)
would have originated from many different sources (which might be
traced
themselves in 6xx or 7xx fields.)
It also bears restating that both APPM rule 2.1A4 and our draft
guidelines
call for the addition of the term "collector" after the main entry in
these
cases, which should clarify the role for anyone who is perplexed in
looking
at these records. One would also hope there would be some explanatory
note
in the body of the collection record, if necessary. Perhaps in our
discussion of field 545 (biographical or historical note) or 520 / 505
(summary or contents) we could provide an example to illustrate this,
along
the lines of my completely spontaneous italicized addition to the
example
below:
520 Consists principally of maps of the United States as a whole.
Also
includes maps of sections of the United States and individual states
and
cities, showing railroads or railroad related information. The
collection
was assembled by John Smith in the mid 19th century, and includes
materials
collected during his business travels. $b Includes some maps of London
environs, western Canada, and Europe.
Beth
At 05:05 PM 1/21/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>Main entry for collection-level cataloging
>
>
>
>Once again, I apologize for forgetting to discuss the proposed DCRM(B)
>appendix on collection-level cataloging. The editors (John Attig, Bob
>Maxwell, Joe Springer, Manon Théroux, and me) did discuss it during
our
>day and a half meeting after the conference in San Diego. The issue of
>collector main entry is one we would like to address sooner rather
than later.
>
>
>
>I don't have the CSB on collection-level records in front of me, but
>whether or not I'm right in assuming that the instruction for giving
the
>collector the main entry came from there, the editors need to be
persuaded
>that this is appropriate for the cataloging of printed materials.
Section
>D on "Elements of the catalog record", a) on 1XX field: Main entry
heading
>starts out well by emphasizing that title main entry is appropriate
for
>many collections, and for requiring that all items comprised by the
>collection record have the same personal or corporate authorship. This
is
>in compliance with AACR2.
>
>
>
>We question the 2nd paragraph of section a) instructing that if a
>collection is known by the name of a collector, generally enter that
name
>in a 1xx field. The editors are considering deleting that provision.
>Naturally in such a case, the collector may be entered in a 7xx field.
>Those of you with persuasive and/or passionate opinions please give us
>your best shot. To DCRB-L please, so everyone can participate in the
>discussion.
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________
>
>Deborah J. Leslie
>
>Folger Library
>
>djleslie@folger.edu
>
>
>
----------------------
Beth M. Russell
Head, Special Collections Cataloging
Assistant Professor
The Ohio State University Libraries
1858 Neil Avenue Mall
Columbus OH 43210-1286
614-247-7463
FAX 614-292-2015
russell.363@osu.edu
----------------------
From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Thu Jan 22 20:14:24 2004
From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Robert Maxwell)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:14:24 -0700
Subject: [DCRB-L] Main entry for collectors
Message-ID:
Arguments have been put forward that it would be logical or a good idea (or enlightened or special :-) to assign main entry to the collector of a group of items that are to be cataloged on a collective record. These arguments are certainly persuasive, but in order to be convincing to the editors (I think ...), giving main entry to collector has to comply with the principles we've all agreed lie behind DCRM(B). One of the main principles is:
"DCRM rules shall conform to the structure and language of the latest revision of AACR2 to the extent possible ... DCRM shall not introduce rules that are not required by differences expected between rare and general materials." (see http://www.folger.edu/bsc/dcrb/wg1finaldraft20030313.doc; this language will appear in DCRM).
As I say, persuasive arguments have been made that doing this might be a good idea, but I have not heard any persuasive argument (yet) that introducing this rule, which *would* produce different results than AACR2 would, *is* "required by differences expected between rare and general materials." A cataloger of general materials following AACR2 making a collective record for a group of items (whether it be a scrapbook, a bunch of stuff in the backlog, or a discrete collection of published books) would not assign main entry to the collector under AACR2 rules. The argument that this follows archival practice is only slightly relevant since we are not promulgating archival rules but rare materials rules. The principles for DCRM rule forumlation do not say "DCRM shall not introduce rules that are not required by differences between *archival* and general materials" but "*rare* and general materials."
I am a great fan of the main entry and am not on the side of those in the larger cataloging community who think the concept should be abolished. However, I don't see, in this case, a reason for departing from AACR2 that is required by the *rare* nature of the materials. At least I don't see this yet. It would be more helpful to me to hear arguments, if any, for this aspect of the problem, than to hear arguments that "it makes sense" or "it's a good idea."
And by the way, lest any of you are worried about access (rather than TYPE of entry), DCRM *will* call for an access point for the collector (if any); the debate here is only on the narrow point of whether that access point should be main or added entry.
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568
>-----Original Message-----
>From: dcrb-l-admin@lib.byu.edu
>[mailto:dcrb-l-admin@lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of R. Arvid Nelsen
>Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 11:55 AM
>To: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu
>Subject: Re: [DCRB-L] Main entry for collectors
>
>
>Thanks for this clear line of argumentation. I was debating
>with myself
>the need for a follow-up to Jackie's e-mail, whose argument was merely
>we can be foreward thinking or backward, without a clear
>argument of the
>merits of or need for the main entry. I also think some explanation is
>required to counteract the argument also put forth that the
>statement is
>taken from APPM and therefore (?) can be dropped.
>
>Kudos!
>Arvid
>
>R. Arvid Nelsen
>Special Collections Cataloger
>University of California, San Diego
>Mandeville Special Collections Library, 0175S
>9500 Gilman Drive
>La Jolla, CA 92093-0175
>858/534-6766
>
>>>> russell.363@osu.edu 01/22/04 10:22AM >>>
>Others more knowledgeable than myself have already described the
>importance
>of "collector" main entry. I don't know if my contribution is
>persuasive,
>but it is passionately held!
>
> From a purely theoretical point of view, the "collector" is in fact,
>the
>CREATOR of the collection, which is the ITEM being cataloged. There is
>only
>one item being cataloged in a collection-level record (the collection)
>and
>if one individual is responsible for assembling its contents in its
>current
>state, this activity surely merits main entry, so long as we maintain
>the
>concept of main entry in our cataloging rules. If one were cataloging a
>
>scrapbook, for example, the compiler of the scrapbook would play the
>same
>role (and "deserve" main entry in the same way) although the individual
>
>components of the scrapbook (newspaper clippings, programs, photos,
>etc.)
>would have originated from many different sources (which might be
>traced
>themselves in 6xx or 7xx fields.)
>
>It also bears restating that both APPM rule 2.1A4 and our draft
>guidelines
>call for the addition of the term "collector" after the main entry in
>these
>cases, which should clarify the role for anyone who is perplexed in
>looking
>at these records. One would also hope there would be some explanatory
>note
>in the body of the collection record, if necessary. Perhaps in our
>discussion of field 545 (biographical or historical note) or 520 / 505
>
>(summary or contents) we could provide an example to illustrate this,
>along
>the lines of my completely spontaneous italicized addition to the
>example
>below:
>520 Consists principally of maps of the United States as a whole.
>Also
>includes maps of sections of the United States and individual states
>and
>cities, showing railroads or railroad related information. The
>collection
>was assembled by John Smith in the mid 19th century, and includes
>materials
>collected during his business travels. $b Includes some maps of London
>
>environs, western Canada, and Europe.
>
>Beth
>
>
>At 05:05 PM 1/21/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>Main entry for collection-level cataloging
>>
>>
>>
>>Once again, I apologize for forgetting to discuss the proposed DCRM(B)
>
>>appendix on collection-level cataloging. The editors (John Attig, Bob
>
>>Maxwell, Joe Springer, Manon Théroux, and me) did discuss it during
>our
>>day and a half meeting after the conference in San Diego. The issue of
>
>>collector main entry is one we would like to address sooner rather
>than later.
>>
>>
>>
>>I don't have the CSB on collection-level records in front of me, but
>>whether or not I'm right in assuming that the instruction for giving
>the
>>collector the main entry came from there, the editors need to be
>persuaded
>>that this is appropriate for the cataloging of printed materials.
>Section
>>D on "Elements of the catalog record", a) on 1XX field: Main entry
>heading
>>starts out well by emphasizing that title main entry is appropriate
>for
>>many collections, and for requiring that all items comprised by the
>>collection record have the same personal or corporate authorship. This
>is
>>in compliance with AACR2.
>>
>>
>>
>>We question the 2nd paragraph of section a) instructing that if a
>>collection is known by the name of a collector, generally enter that
>name
>>in a 1xx field. The editors are considering deleting that provision.
>>Naturally in such a case, the collector may be entered in a 7xx field.
>
>>Those of you with persuasive and/or passionate opinions please give us
>
>>your best shot. To DCRB-L please, so everyone can participate in the
>>discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________
>>
>>Deborah J. Leslie
>>
>>Folger Library
>>
>>djleslie@folger.edu
>>
>>
>>
>
>----------------------
>Beth M. Russell
>Head, Special Collections Cataloging
>Assistant Professor
>The Ohio State University Libraries
>1858 Neil Avenue Mall
>Columbus OH 43210-1286
>614-247-7463
>FAX 614-292-2015
>russell.363@osu.edu
>----------------------
>
>
From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Thu Jan 22 20:58:12 2004
From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Beth Russell)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:58:12 -0500
Subject: [DCRB-L] Main entry for collectors
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20040122153003.00badf28@pop.service.ohio-state.edu>
Robert & everyone,
I just spent a few fruitless moments with AACR2 looking for guidance in
this matter. The only helpful rule I can find is 21.1A1, which states that
"a personal author is the person chiefly responsible for the creation of
the intellectual or artistic content of a work." 21.1A2 then directs us to
"enter a work by one or more persons under the heading for the personal
author (see 21.4A) the principle personal author (see 21.6B) or the
probable personal author (see 21.5B.)"
I may very well be overlooking specific rules in AACR2 which prohibit
catalogers from concluding that a collector, in a given context, is a
personal author, chiefly responsible for the content of a work. If there
are no such rules, and if "our" shared understanding of personal authorship
equates compilation of a collection with creator-ship, I would think AACR2
is broad enough to allow it.
I now await the replies of those who "speak AACR" better than I!
Beth
At 01:14 PM 1/22/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>Arguments have been put forward that it would be logical or a good idea
>(or enlightened or special :-) to assign main entry to the collector of a
>group of items that are to be cataloged on a collective record. These
>arguments are certainly persuasive, but in order to be convincing to the
>editors (I think ...), giving main entry to collector has to comply with
>the principles we've all agreed lie behind DCRM(B). One of the main
>principles is:
>
>"DCRM rules shall conform to the structure and language of the latest
>revision of AACR2 to the extent possible ... DCRM shall not introduce
>rules that are not required by differences expected between rare and
>general materials." (see
>http://www.folger.edu/bsc/dcrb/wg1finaldraft20030313.doc; this language
>will appear in DCRM).
>
>As I say, persuasive arguments have been made that doing this might be a
>good idea, but I have not heard any persuasive argument (yet) that
>introducing this rule, which *would* produce different results than AACR2
>would, *is* "required by differences expected between rare and general
>materials." A cataloger of general materials following AACR2 making a
>collective record for a group of items (whether it be a scrapbook, a bunch
>of stuff in the backlog, or a discrete collection of published books)
>would not assign main entry to the collector under AACR2 rules. The
>argument that this follows archival practice is only slightly relevant
>since we are not promulgating archival rules but rare materials rules. The
>principles for DCRM rule forumlation do not say "DCRM shall not introduce
>rules that are not required by differences between *archival* and general
>materials" but "*rare* and general materials."
>
>I am a great fan of the main entry and am not on the side of those in the
>larger cataloging community who think the concept should be abolished.
>However, I don't see, in this case, a reason for departing from AACR2 that
>is required by the *rare* nature of the materials. At least I don't see
>this yet. It would be more helpful to me to hear arguments, if any, for
>this aspect of the problem, than to hear arguments that "it makes sense"
>or "it's a good idea."
>
>And by the way, lest any of you are worried about access (rather than TYPE
>of entry), DCRM *will* call for an access point for the collector (if
>any); the debate here is only on the narrow point of whether that access
>point should be main or added entry.
>
>Bob
>
>Robert L. Maxwell
>Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
>Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
>6728 Harold B. Lee Library
>Brigham Young University
>Provo, UT 84602
>(801)422-5568
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: dcrb-l-admin@lib.byu.edu
> >[mailto:dcrb-l-admin@lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of R. Arvid Nelsen
> >Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 11:55 AM
> >To: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu
> >Subject: Re: [DCRB-L] Main entry for collectors
> >
> >
> >Thanks for this clear line of argumentation. I was debating
> >with myself
> >the need for a follow-up to Jackie's e-mail, whose argument was merely
> >we can be foreward thinking or backward, without a clear
> >argument of the
> >merits of or need for the main entry. I also think some explanation is
> >required to counteract the argument also put forth that the
> >statement is
> >taken from APPM and therefore (?) can be dropped.
> >
> >Kudos!
> >Arvid
> >
> >R. Arvid Nelsen
> >Special Collections Cataloger
> >University of California, San Diego
> >Mandeville Special Collections Library, 0175S
> >9500 Gilman Drive
> >La Jolla, CA 92093-0175
> >858/534-6766
> >
> >>>> russell.363@osu.edu 01/22/04 10:22AM >>>
> >Others more knowledgeable than myself have already described the
> >importance
> >of "collector" main entry. I don't know if my contribution is
> >persuasive,
> >but it is passionately held!
> >
> > From a purely theoretical point of view, the "collector" is in fact,
> >the
> >CREATOR of the collection, which is the ITEM being cataloged. There is
> >only
> >one item being cataloged in a collection-level record (the collection)
> >and
> >if one individual is responsible for assembling its contents in its
> >current
> >state, this activity surely merits main entry, so long as we maintain
> >the
> >concept of main entry in our cataloging rules. If one were cataloging a
> >
> >scrapbook, for example, the compiler of the scrapbook would play the
> >same
> >role (and "deserve" main entry in the same way) although the individual
> >
> >components of the scrapbook (newspaper clippings, programs, photos,
> >etc.)
> >would have originated from many different sources (which might be
> >traced
> >themselves in 6xx or 7xx fields.)
> >
> >It also bears restating that both APPM rule 2.1A4 and our draft
> >guidelines
> >call for the addition of the term "collector" after the main entry in
> >these
> >cases, which should clarify the role for anyone who is perplexed in
> >looking
> >at these records. One would also hope there would be some explanatory
> >note
> >in the body of the collection record, if necessary. Perhaps in our
> >discussion of field 545 (biographical or historical note) or 520 / 505
> >
> >(summary or contents) we could provide an example to illustrate this,
> >along
> >the lines of my completely spontaneous italicized addition to the
> >example
> >below:
> >520 Consists principally of maps of the United States as a whole.
> >Also
> >includes maps of sections of the United States and individual states
> >and
> >cities, showing railroads or railroad related information. The
> >collection
> >was assembled by John Smith in the mid 19th century, and includes
> >materials
> >collected during his business travels. $b Includes some maps of London
> >
> >environs, western Canada, and Europe.
> >
> >Beth
> >
> >
> >At 05:05 PM 1/21/2004 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> >>Main entry for collection-level cataloging
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Once again, I apologize for forgetting to discuss the proposed DCRM(B)
> >
> >>appendix on collection-level cataloging. The editors (John Attig, Bob
> >
> >>Maxwell, Joe Springer, Manon Théroux, and me) did discuss it during
> >our
> >>day and a half meeting after the conference in San Diego. The issue of
> >
> >>collector main entry is one we would like to address sooner rather
> >than later.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>I don't have the CSB on collection-level records in front of me, but
> >>whether or not I'm right in assuming that the instruction for giving
> >the
> >>collector the main entry came from there, the editors need to be
> >persuaded
> >>that this is appropriate for the cataloging of printed materials.
> >Section
> >>D on "Elements of the catalog record", a) on 1XX field: Main entry
> >heading
> >>starts out well by emphasizing that title main entry is appropriate
> >for
> >>many collections, and for requiring that all items comprised by the
> >>collection record have the same personal or corporate authorship. This
> >is
> >>in compliance with AACR2.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>We question the 2nd paragraph of section a) instructing that if a
> >>collection is known by the name of a collector, generally enter that
> >name
> >>in a 1xx field. The editors are considering deleting that provision.
> >>Naturally in such a case, the collector may be entered in a 7xx field.
> >
> >>Those of you with persuasive and/or passionate opinions please give us
> >
> >>your best shot. To DCRB-L please, so everyone can participate in the
> >>discussion.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>________________________
> >>
> >>Deborah J. Leslie
> >>
> >>Folger Library
> >>
> >>djleslie@folger.edu
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >----------------------
> >Beth M. Russell
> >Head, Special Collections Cataloging
> >Assistant Professor
> >The Ohio State University Libraries
> >1858 Neil Avenue Mall
> >Columbus OH 43210-1286
> >614-247-7463
> >FAX 614-292-2015
> >russell.363@osu.edu
> >----------------------
> >
> >
----------------------
Beth M. Russell
Head, Special Collections Cataloging
Assistant Professor
The Ohio State University Libraries
1858 Neil Avenue Mall
Columbus OH 43210-1286
614-247-7463
FAX 614-292-2015
russell.363@osu.edu
----------------------
From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Thu Jan 22 20:59:00 2004
From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Jain Fletcher)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:59:00 -0800
Subject: [DCRB-L] Main entry for collectors
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20040122125644.00b607d8@pop.service.ohio-state.edu>
References: <4.3.2.7.2.20040122125644.00b607d8@pop.service.ohio-state.edu>
Message-ID: <73981640.1074776340@yrl-s-spc304.library.ucla.edu>
Hello all,
I think Beth has put together a good rationale here--it's the kind of
thinking that people working on collections have to go through all the
time. Not being an avid follower of APPM myself (in other words, I don't
always do something just because APPM says so), when faced with such
situations, I try to apply AACR2 concepts about main entry to them. In
that context, I have found that it is generally a combination (and
weighting) of factors about each collection (and its known collector) that
helps determine the placement of a collector's name in the record.
Sometimes it's main entry, other times it's added entry. The issue of
concern that Deborah has described (where both the collector and the
collection are quite well known) would almost always result in collector
main entry in my own determination of the factors involved. The only thing
I can think of that would bump the collector into added entry status would
be if the collection was a compilation of items *all* by the same
author/composer/artist etc. (where I think the author's creative input
would trump the collector's).
But please note, the rule states that this is to be applied only for
collections that are well known by their collector. In cases where the
collector's work is not known or less known, it should be quite sufficient
to put the collector into a 7xx field, with $e collector. Because
(speaking about "advanced thinking"--even though this is a concept Dr.
Svenonius had us consider years ago in cataloging class): with online
catalogs, what does it really matter *where* the collector is placed in a
record, as long as s/he is there?
Just to put this a more concrete basis for people's consideration, I
thought I'd put forth an example of a well-known collector's collection.
For my own thinking of this issue, I simply put UCLA's Michael Sadleir
collection of 19th century British fiction to the test. (I'm pretty sure
this is well known ;-) Now, if UCLA had not cataloged each book in
this collection and instead had made a single collection record for it--or
even If UCLA now decided to make an adjunct collection-level record to this
collection--can anyone imagine *not* having Sadleir as the main entry? For
one (of course) there is the generic aspect that comes if entered only by
its title: Collection of 19th century British fiction. While it is fine to
enter collections with a generic title (esp. when the collector is not
known), isn't it true that this is quite a particular collection, put
together by a known expert on the subject and therefore... (repeat m/e
rationale here)?
Thanks for asking Deborah (and editors). I would love to hear about how
this comes out. --Jain
--On Thursday, January 22, 2004 1:22 PM -0500 Beth Russell
wrote:
> Others more knowledgeable than myself have already described the
> importance of "collector" main entry. I don't know if my contribution is
> persuasive, but it is passionately held!
>
> From a purely theoretical point of view, the "collector" is in fact, the
> CREATOR of the collection, which is the ITEM being cataloged. There is
> only one item being cataloged in a collection-level record (the
> collection) and if one individual is responsible for assembling its
> contents in its current state, this activity surely merits main entry, so
> long as we maintain the concept of main entry in our cataloging rules. If
> one were cataloging a scrapbook, for example, the compiler of the
> scrapbook would play the same role (and "deserve" main entry in the same
> way) although the individual components of the scrapbook (newspaper
> clippings, programs, photos, etc.) would have originated from many
> different sources (which might be traced themselves in 6xx or 7xx
> fields.)
>
> It also bears restating that both APPM rule 2.1A4 and our draft
> guidelines call for the addition of the term "collector" after the main
> entry in these cases, which should clarify the role for anyone who is
> perplexed in looking at these records. One would also hope there would be
> some explanatory note in the body of the collection record, if necessary.
> Perhaps in our discussion of field 545 (biographical or historical note)
> or 520 / 505 (summary or contents) we could provide an example to
> illustrate this, along the lines of my completely spontaneous italicized
> addition to the example below:
>
>
>
>
> 520 Consists principally of maps of the United States as a whole.
> Also includes maps of sections of the United States and individual states
> and cities, showing railroads or railroad related information. The
> collection was assembled by John Smith in the mid 19th century, and
> includes materials collected during his business travels. $b Includes
> some maps of London environs, western Canada, and Europe.
>
> Beth
>
>
> At 05:05 PM 1/21/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
> Main entry for collection-level cataloging
>
>
>
> Once again, I apologize for forgetting to discuss the proposed DCRM(B)
> appendix on collection-level cataloging. The editors (John Attig, Bob
> Maxwell, Joe Springer, Manon Théroux, and me) did discuss it during our
> day and a half meeting after the conference in San Diego. The issue of
> collector main entry is one we would like to address sooner rather than
> later.
>
>
>
> I don't have the CSB on collection-level records in front of me, but
> whether or not I'm right in assuming that the instruction for giving the
> collector the main entry came from there, the editors need to be
> persuaded that this is appropriate for the cataloging of printed
> materials. Section D on "Elements of the catalog record", a) on 1XX
> field: Main entry heading starts out well by emphasizing that title main
> entry is appropriate for many collections, and for requiring that all
> items comprised by the collection record have the same personal or
> corporate authorship. This is in compliance with AACR2.
>
>
>
> We question the 2nd paragraph of section a) instructing that if a
> collection is known by the name of a collector, generally enter that name
> in a 1xx field. The editors are considering deleting that provision.
> Naturally in such a case, the collector may be entered in a 7xx field.
> Those of you with persuasive and/or passionate opinions please give us
> your best shot. To DCRB-L please, so everyone can participate in the
> discussion.
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________
>
> Deborah J. Leslie
>
> Folger Library
>
> djleslie@folger.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------
> Beth M. Russell
> Head, Special Collections Cataloging
> Assistant Professor
> The Ohio State University Libraries
> 1858 Neil Avenue Mall
> Columbus OH 43210-1286
> 614-247-7463
> FAX 614-292-2015
> russell.363@osu.edu
> ----------------------
Jain Fletcher
Head, Collections & Technical Services Division
Department of Special Collections
Young Research Library - UCLA
Box 951575
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1575
v: (310) 794-4096
f: (310) 206-1864
e: jfletchr@library.ucla.edu
From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Thu Jan 22 21:24:02 2004
From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Beth Russell)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:24:02 -0500
Subject: [DCRB-L] Main entry for collectors
In-Reply-To: <73981640.1074776340@yrl-s-spc304.library.ucla.edu>
References: <4.3.2.7.2.20040122125644.00b607d8@pop.service.ohio-state.edu>
<4.3.2.7.2.20040122125644.00b607d8@pop.service.ohio-state.edu>
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20040122161448.00b77010@pop.service.ohio-state.edu>
--Boundary_(ID_ZItxk3qs34WDEZ/b4oESrA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks to Jain for reminding us that the collector as main entry question=20
only applies "when the collection is known by the name of a collector. "
Libraries will likely create more collection-level records for materials=20
which are NOT known by the name of a collector. Additionally, a given=20
collection might have been "created" by several donors/collectors. In=20
either of these cases, title main entry, adding a 7xx with the appropriate=
=20
relator code/term is not only much more logical, but appears to be mandated=
=20
by both APPM and AACR2.
Beth
At 12:59 PM 1/22/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>Hello all,
> I think Beth has put together a good rationale here--it's the kind of=20
> thinking that people working on collections have to go through all the=20
> time. Not being an avid follower of APPM myself (in other words, I don't=
=20
> always do something just because APPM says so), when faced with such=20
> situations, I try to apply AACR2 concepts about main entry to them. In=20
> that context, I have found that it is generally a combination (and=20
> weighting) of factors about each collection (and its known collector)=20
> that helps determine the placement of a collector's name in the record.=20
> Sometimes it's main entry, other times it's added entry. The issue of=20
> concern that Deborah has described (where both the collector and the=20
> collection are quite well known) would almost always result in collector=
=20
> main entry in my own determination of the factors involved. The only=20
> thing I can think of that would bump the collector into added entry=20
> status would be if the collection was a compilation of items *all* by the=
=20
> same author/composer/artist etc. (where I think the author's creative=20
> input would trump the collector's).
> But please note, the rule states that this is to be applied only for=20
> collections that are well known by their collector. In cases where the=20
> collector's work is not known or less known, it should be quite=20
> sufficient to put the collector into a 7xx field, with $e=20
> collector. Because (speaking about "advanced thinking"--even though this=
=20
> is a concept Dr. Svenonius had us consider years ago in cataloging=20
> class): with online catalogs, what does it really matter *where* the=20
> collector is placed in a record, as long as s/he is there?
> Just to put this a more concrete basis for people's consideration, I=20
> thought I'd put forth an example of a well-known collector's collection.=
=20
> For my own thinking of this issue, I simply put UCLA's Michael Sadleir=20
> collection of 19th century British fiction to the test. (I'm pretty sure=
=20
> this is well known ;-) Now, if UCLA had not cataloged each book in=20
> this collection and instead had made a single collection record for=20
> it--or even If UCLA now decided to make an adjunct collection-level=20
> record to this collection--can anyone imagine *not* having Sadleir as the=
=20
> main entry? For one (of course) there is the generic aspect that comes=20
> if entered only by its title: Collection of 19th century British=20
> fiction. While it is fine to enter collections with a generic title=20
> (esp. when the collector is not known), isn't it true that this is quite=
=20
> a particular collection, put together by a known expert on the subject=20
> and therefore... (repeat m/e rationale here)?
> Thanks for asking Deborah (and editors). I would love to hear about=20
> how this comes out. --Jain
>
>
>
>--On Thursday, January 22, 2004 1:22 PM -0500 Beth Russell=20
> wrote:
>
>>Others more knowledgeable than myself have already described the
>>importance of "collector" main entry. I don't know if my contribution is
>>persuasive, but it is passionately held!
>>
>> From a purely theoretical point of view, the "collector" is in fact, the
>>CREATOR of the collection, which is the ITEM being cataloged. There is
>>only one item being cataloged in a collection-level record (the
>>collection) and if one individual is responsible for assembling its
>>contents in its current state, this activity surely merits main entry, so
>>long as we maintain the concept of main entry in our cataloging rules. If
>>one were cataloging a scrapbook, for example, the compiler of the
>>scrapbook would play the same role (and "deserve" main entry in the same
>>way) although the individual components of the scrapbook (newspaper
>>clippings, programs, photos, etc.) would have originated from many
>>different sources (which might be traced themselves in 6xx or 7xx
>>fields.)
>>
>>It also bears restating that both APPM rule 2.1A4 and our draft
>>guidelines call for the addition of the term "collector" after the main
>>entry in these cases, which should clarify the role for anyone who is
>>perplexed in looking at these records. One would also hope there would be
>>some explanatory note in the body of the collection record, if necessary.
>>Perhaps in our discussion of field 545 (biographical or historical note)
>>or 520 / 505 (summary or contents) we could provide an example to
>>illustrate this, along the lines of my completely spontaneous italicized
>>addition to the example below:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>520 Consists principally of maps of the United States as a whole.
>>Also includes maps of sections of the United States and individual states
>>and cities, showing railroads or railroad related information. The
>>collection was assembled by John Smith in the mid 19th century, and
>>includes materials collected during his business travels. $b Includes
>>some maps of London environs, western Canada, and Europe.
>>
>>Beth
>>
>>
>>At 05:05 PM 1/21/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>Main entry for collection-level cataloging
>>
>>
>>
>>Once again, I apologize for forgetting to discuss the proposed DCRM(B)
>>appendix on collection-level cataloging. The editors (John Attig, Bob
>>Maxwell, Joe Springer, Manon Th=E9roux, and me) did discuss it during our
>>day and a half meeting after the conference in San Diego. The issue of
>>collector main entry is one we would like to address sooner rather than
>>later.
>>
>>
>>
>>I don't have the CSB on collection-level records in front of me, but
>>whether or not I'm right in assuming that the instruction for giving the
>>collector the main entry came from there, the editors need to be
>>persuaded that this is appropriate for the cataloging of printed
>>materials. Section D on "Elements of the catalog record", a) on 1XX
>>field: Main entry heading starts out well by emphasizing that title main
>>entry is appropriate for many collections, and for requiring that all
>>items comprised by the collection record have the same personal or
>>corporate authorship. This is in compliance with AACR2.
>>
>>
>>
>>We question the 2nd paragraph of section a) instructing that if a
>>collection is known by the name of a collector, generally enter that name
>>in a 1xx field. The editors are considering deleting that provision.
>>Naturally in such a case, the collector may be entered in a 7xx field.
>>Those of you with persuasive and/or passionate opinions please give us
>>your best shot. To DCRB-L please, so everyone can participate in the
>>discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________
>>
>>Deborah J. Leslie
>>
>>Folger Library
>>
>>djleslie@folger.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>----------------------
>>Beth M. Russell
>>Head, Special Collections Cataloging
>>Assistant Professor
>>The Ohio State University Libraries
>>1858 Neil Avenue Mall
>>Columbus OH 43210-1286
>>614-247-7463
>>FAX 614-292-2015
>>russell.363@osu.edu
>>----------------------
>
>
>
>Jain Fletcher
>Head, Collections & Technical Services Division
>Department of Special Collections
>Young Research Library - UCLA
>Box 951575
>Los Angeles, CA 90095-1575
>
>v: (310) 794-4096
>f: (310) 206-1864
>e: jfletchr@library.ucla.edu
----------------------
Beth M. Russell
Head, Special Collections Cataloging
Assistant Professor
The Ohio State University Libraries
1858 Neil Avenue Mall
Columbus OH 43210-1286
614-247-7463
FAX 614-292-2015
russell.363@osu.edu
----------------------
--Boundary_(ID_ZItxk3qs34WDEZ/b4oESrA)
Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks to Jain for reminding us that the collector as main entry question
only applies "when the collection is known by
the name of a collector. "
Libraries will likely create more collection-level records for
materials which are NOT known by the name of a collector. Additionally, a
given collection might have been "created" by several
donors/collectors. In either of these cases, title main entry, adding a
7xx with the appropriate relator code/term is not only much more logical,
but appears to be mandated by both APPM and AACR2.
Beth
At 12:59 PM 1/22/2004 -0800, you wrote:
Hello all,
I think Beth has put together a good rationale here--it's the kind
of thinking that people working on collections have to go through all the
time. Not being an avid follower of APPM myself (in other words, I don't
always do something just because APPM says so), when faced with such
situations, I try to apply AACR2 concepts about main entry to them.
In that context, I have found that it is generally a combination (and
weighting) of factors about each collection (and its known collector)
that helps determine the placement of a collector's name in the record.
Sometimes it's main entry, other times it's added entry. The issue
of concern that Deborah has described (where both the collector and the
collection are quite well known) would almost always result in collector
main entry in my own determination of the factors involved. The
only thing I can think of that would bump the collector into added entry
status would be if the collection was a compilation of items *all* by the
same author/composer/artist etc. (where I think the author's creative
input would trump the collector's).
But please note, the rule states that this is to be applied only
for collections that are well known by their collector. In cases
where the collector's work is not known or less known, it should be quite
sufficient to put the collector into a 7xx field, with $e
collector. Because (speaking about "advanced
thinking"--even though this is a concept Dr. Svenonius had us
consider years ago in cataloging class): with online catalogs, what does
it really matter *where* the collector is placed in a record, as long as
s/he is there?
Just to put this a more concrete basis for people's consideration,
I thought I'd put forth an example of a well-known collector's
collection. For my own thinking of this issue, I simply put UCLA's
Michael Sadleir collection of 19th century British fiction to the
test. (I'm pretty sure this is well known
;-) Now, if UCLA had not cataloged each book in this
collection and instead had made a single collection record for it--or
even If UCLA now decided to make an adjunct collection-level record to
this collection--can anyone imagine *not* having Sadleir as the main
entry? For one (of course) there is the generic aspect that comes
if entered only by its title: Collection of 19th century British
fiction. While it is fine to enter collections with a generic title
(esp. when the collector is not known), isn't it true that this is quite
a particular collection, put together by a known expert on the subject
and therefore... (repeat m/e rationale here)?
Thanks for asking Deborah (and editors). I would love to
hear about how this comes
out. &n=
bsp; &nb=
sp; &nbs=
p; --Jain
--On Thursday, January 22, 2004 1:22 PM -0500 Beth Russell
<russell.363@osu.edu> wrote:
Others more knowledgeable than myself have
already described the
importance of "collector" main entry. I don't know if my
contribution is
persuasive, but it is passionately held!
From a purely theoretical point of view, the "collector"
is in fact, the
CREATOR of the collection, which is the ITEM being cataloged. There
is
only one item being cataloged in a collection-level record (the
collection) and if one individual is responsible for assembling its
contents in its current state, this activity surely merits main entry,
so
long as we maintain the concept of main entry in our cataloging rules.
If
one were cataloging a scrapbook, for example, the compiler of the
scrapbook would play the same role (and "deserve" main entry in
the same
way) although the individual components of the scrapbook (newspaper
clippings, programs, photos, etc.) would have originated from many
different sources (which might be traced themselves in 6xx or 7xx
fields.)
It also bears restating that both APPM rule 2.1A4 and our draft
guidelines call for the addition of the term "collector" after
the main
entry in these cases, which should clarify the role for anyone who
is
perplexed in looking at these records. One would also hope there would
be
some explanatory note in the body of the collection record, if
necessary.
Perhaps in our discussion of field 545 (biographical or historical
note)
or 520 / 505 (summary or contents) we could provide an example to
illustrate this, along the lines of my completely spontaneous
italicized
addition to the example below:
520 Consists principally of maps of the United
States as a whole.
Also includes maps of sections of the United States and individual
states
and cities, showing railroads or railroad related information. The
collection was assembled by John Smith in the mid 19th century, and
includes materials collected during his business travels. $b
Includes
some maps of London environs, western Canada, and Europe.
Beth
At 05:05 PM 1/21/2004 -0500, you wrote:
Main entry for collection-level cataloging
Once again, I apologize for forgetting to discuss the proposed
DCRM(B)
appendix on collection-level cataloging. The editors (John Attig,
Bob
Maxwell, Joe Springer, Manon Th=E9roux, and me) did discuss it during
our
day and a half meeting after the conference in San Diego. The issue
of
collector main entry is one we would like to address sooner rather
than
later.
I don't have the CSB on collection-level records in front of me,=20
but
whether or not I'm right in assuming that the instruction for giving
the
collector the main entry came from there, the editors need to be
persuaded that this is appropriate for the cataloging of printed
materials. Section D on "Elements of the catalog record", a) on
1XX
field: Main entry heading starts out well by emphasizing that title
main
entry is appropriate for many collections, and for requiring that
all
items comprised by the collection record have the same personal or
corporate authorship. This is in compliance with AACR2.
We question the 2nd paragraph of section a) instructing that if a
collection is known by the name of a collector, generally enter that
name
in a 1xx field. The editors are considering deleting that=20
provision.
Naturally in such a case, the collector may be entered in a 7xx
field.
Those of you with persuasive and/or passionate opinions please give
us
your best shot. To DCRB-L please, so everyone can participate in=20
the
discussion.
________________________
Deborah J. Leslie
Folger Library
djleslie@folger.edu
----------------------
Beth M. Russell
Head, Special Collections Cataloging
Assistant Professor
The Ohio State University Libraries
1858 Neil Avenue Mall
Columbus OH 43210-1286
614-247-7463
FAX 614-292-2015
russell.363@osu.edu
----------------------
Jain Fletcher
Head, Collections & Technical Services Division
Department of Special Collections
Young Research Library - UCLA
Box 951575
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1575
v: (310) 794-4096
f: (310) 206-1864
e: jfletchr@library.ucla.edu
----------------------
Beth M. Russell
Head, Special Collections Cataloging
Assistant Professor
The Ohio State University Libraries
1858 Neil Avenue Mall
Columbus OH 43210-1286
614-247-7463
FAX 614-292-2015
russell.363@osu.edu
----------------------
--Boundary_(ID_ZItxk3qs34WDEZ/b4oESrA)--
From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Thu Jan 22 21:33:09 2004
From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (John Attig)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:33:09 -0500
Subject: [DCRB-L] Main entry for collectors
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20040122153003.00badf28@pop.service.ohio-state.e du>
References:
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040122162458.01e72d60@psulias.psu.edu>
Am I one of those who "speak AACR"? In any case, I think I should comment.
I see Bob's point, but I'm less concerned about compatibility with AACR2
that Bob.
First, the rules for main entry in AACR already allow some things that are
hard to justify on principle -- such as main entry for performers.
Second, I am convinced that at some point in the hazy future, AACR2 is
going to have to deal with archival principles and concepts and catalog
rule writers will have to collaborate with archivists to come up with a
consistent principled approach to description, at least in databases that
include both cataloging and archival records. Given this, I think the
principle of primary entry under collector will inevitably and eventually
be recognized in AACR. In the meantime, given its firm place in archival
descriptive practice and the relevance of such practice to the issue at
hand (collection-level descriptions), I'm not opposed to including main
entry under collector in DCRM.
John
At 03:58 PM 1/22/2004, Beth Russell wrote:
>Robert & everyone,
>
>I just spent a few fruitless moments with AACR2 looking for guidance in
>this matter. The only helpful rule I can find is 21.1A1, which states that
>"a personal author is the person chiefly responsible for the creation of
>the intellectual or artistic content of a work." 21.1A2 then directs us to
>"enter a work by one or more persons under the heading for the personal
>author (see 21.4A) the principle personal author (see 21.6B) or the
>probable personal author (see 21.5B.)"
>
>I may very well be overlooking specific rules in AACR2 which prohibit
>catalogers from concluding that a collector, in a given context, is a
>personal author, chiefly responsible for the content of a work. If there
>are no such rules, and if "our" shared understanding of personal
>authorship equates compilation of a collection with creator-ship, I would
>think AACR2 is broad enough to allow it.
>
>I now await the replies of those who "speak AACR" better than I!
>
>Beth
>
>
>At 01:14 PM 1/22/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>>Arguments have been put forward that it would be logical or a good idea
>>(or enlightened or special :-) to assign main entry to the collector of a
>>group of items that are to be cataloged on a collective record. These
>>arguments are certainly persuasive, but in order to be convincing to the
>>editors (I think ...), giving main entry to collector has to comply with
>>the principles we've all agreed lie behind DCRM(B). One of the main
>>principles is:
>>
>>"DCRM rules shall conform to the structure and language of the latest
>>revision of AACR2 to the extent possible ... DCRM shall not introduce
>>rules that are not required by differences expected between rare and
>>general materials." (see
>>http://www.folger.edu/bsc/dcrb/wg1finaldraft20030313.doc; this language
>>will appear in DCRM).
>>
>>As I say, persuasive arguments have been made that doing this might be a
>>good idea, but I have not heard any persuasive argument (yet) that
>>introducing this rule, which *would* produce different results than AACR2
>>would, *is* "required by differences expected between rare and general
>>materials." A cataloger of general materials following AACR2 making a
>>collective record for a group of items (whether it be a scrapbook, a
>>bunch of stuff in the backlog, or a discrete collection of published
>>books) would not assign main entry to the collector under AACR2 rules.
>>The argument that this follows archival practice is only slightly
>>relevant since we are not promulgating archival rules but rare materials
>>rules. The principles for DCRM rule forumlation do not say "DCRM shall
>>not introduce rules that are not required by differences between
>>*archival* and general materials" but "*rare* and general materials."
>>
>>I am a great fan of the main entry and am not on the side of those in the
>>larger cataloging community who think the concept should be abolished.
>>However, I don't see, in this case, a reason for departing from AACR2
>>that is required by the *rare* nature of the materials. At least I don't
>>see this yet. It would be more helpful to me to hear arguments, if any,
>>for this aspect of the problem, than to hear arguments that "it makes
>>sense" or "it's a good idea."
>>
>>And by the way, lest any of you are worried about access (rather than
>>TYPE of entry), DCRM *will* call for an access point for the collector
>>(if any); the debate here is only on the narrow point of whether that
>>access point should be main or added entry.
>>
>>Bob
>>
>>Robert L. Maxwell
>>Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
>>Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
>>6728 Harold B. Lee Library
>>Brigham Young University
>>Provo, UT 84602
>>(801)422-5568
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: dcrb-l-admin@lib.byu.edu
>> >[mailto:dcrb-l-admin@lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of R. Arvid Nelsen
>> >Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 11:55 AM
>> >To: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu
>> >Subject: Re: [DCRB-L] Main entry for collectors
>> >
>> >
>> >Thanks for this clear line of argumentation. I was debating
>> >with myself
>> >the need for a follow-up to Jackie's e-mail, whose argument was merely
>> >we can be foreward thinking or backward, without a clear
>> >argument of the
>> >merits of or need for the main entry. I also think some explanation is
>> >required to counteract the argument also put forth that the
>> >statement is
>> >taken from APPM and therefore (?) can be dropped.
>> >
>> >Kudos!
>> >Arvid
>> >
>> >R. Arvid Nelsen
>> >Special Collections Cataloger
>> >University of California, San Diego
>> >Mandeville Special Collections Library, 0175S
>> >9500 Gilman Drive
>> >La Jolla, CA 92093-0175
>> >858/534-6766
>> >
>> >>>> russell.363@osu.edu 01/22/04 10:22AM >>>
>> >Others more knowledgeable than myself have already described the
>> >importance
>> >of "collector" main entry. I don't know if my contribution is
>> >persuasive,
>> >but it is passionately held!
>> >
>> > From a purely theoretical point of view, the "collector" is in fact,
>> >the
>> >CREATOR of the collection, which is the ITEM being cataloged. There is
>> >only
>> >one item being cataloged in a collection-level record (the collection)
>> >and
>> >if one individual is responsible for assembling its contents in its
>> >current
>> >state, this activity surely merits main entry, so long as we maintain
>> >the
>> >concept of main entry in our cataloging rules. If one were cataloging a
>> >
>> >scrapbook, for example, the compiler of the scrapbook would play the
>> >same
>> >role (and "deserve" main entry in the same way) although the individual
>> >
>> >components of the scrapbook (newspaper clippings, programs, photos,
>> >etc.)
>> >would have originated from many different sources (which might be
>> >traced
>> >themselves in 6xx or 7xx fields.)
>> >
>> >It also bears restating that both APPM rule 2.1A4 and our draft
>> >guidelines
>> >call for the addition of the term "collector" after the main entry in
>> >these
>> >cases, which should clarify the role for anyone who is perplexed in
>> >looking
>> >at these records. One would also hope there would be some explanatory
>> >note
>> >in the body of the collection record, if necessary. Perhaps in our
>> >discussion of field 545 (biographical or historical note) or 520 / 505
>> >
>> >(summary or contents) we could provide an example to illustrate this,
>> >along
>> >the lines of my completely spontaneous italicized addition to the
>> >example
>> >below:
>> >520 Consists principally of maps of the United States as a whole.
>> >Also
>> >includes maps of sections of the United States and individual states
>> >and
>> >cities, showing railroads or railroad related information. The
>> >collection
>> >was assembled by John Smith in the mid 19th century, and includes
>> >materials
>> >collected during his business travels. $b Includes some maps of London
>> >
>> >environs, western Canada, and Europe.
>> >
>> >Beth
>> >
>> >
>> >At 05:05 PM 1/21/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>> >
>> >>Main entry for collection-level cataloging
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Once again, I apologize for forgetting to discuss the proposed DCRM(B)
>> >
>> >>appendix on collection-level cataloging. The editors (John Attig, Bob
>> >
>> >>Maxwell, Joe Springer, Manon Théroux, and me) did discuss it during
>> >our
>> >>day and a half meeting after the conference in San Diego. The issue of
>> >
>> >>collector main entry is one we would like to address sooner rather
>> >than later.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>I don't have the CSB on collection-level records in front of me, but
>> >>whether or not I'm right in assuming that the instruction for giving
>> >the
>> >>collector the main entry came from there, the editors need to be
>> >persuaded
>> >>that this is appropriate for the cataloging of printed materials.
>> >Section
>> >>D on "Elements of the catalog record", a) on 1XX field: Main entry
>> >heading
>> >>starts out well by emphasizing that title main entry is appropriate
>> >for
>> >>many collections, and for requiring that all items comprised by the
>> >>collection record have the same personal or corporate authorship. This
>> >is
>> >>in compliance with AACR2.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>We question the 2nd paragraph of section a) instructing that if a
>> >>collection is known by the name of a collector, generally enter that
>> >name
>> >>in a 1xx field. The editors are considering deleting that provision.
>> >>Naturally in such a case, the collector may be entered in a 7xx field.
>> >
>> >>Those of you with persuasive and/or passionate opinions please give us
>> >
>> >>your best shot. To DCRB-L please, so everyone can participate in the
>> >>discussion.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>________________________
>> >>
>> >>Deborah J. Leslie
>> >>
>> >>Folger Library
>> >>
>> >>djleslie@folger.edu
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >----------------------
>> >Beth M. Russell
>> >Head, Special Collections Cataloging
>> >Assistant Professor
>> >The Ohio State University Libraries
>> >1858 Neil Avenue Mall
>> >Columbus OH 43210-1286
>> >614-247-7463
>> >FAX 614-292-2015
>> >russell.363@osu.edu
>> >----------------------
>> >
>> >
>
>----------------------
>Beth M. Russell
>Head, Special Collections Cataloging
>Assistant Professor
>The Ohio State University Libraries
>1858 Neil Avenue Mall
>Columbus OH 43210-1286
>614-247-7463
>FAX 614-292-2015
>russell.363@osu.edu
>----------------------
>
From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Thu Jan 22 21:39:56 2004
From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Jane Gillis)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:39:56 -0500
Subject: [DCRB-L] Main entry for collectors
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040122155921.02f241d8@jgillis.mail.yale.edu>
--=====================_30091188==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
I think we are on solid enough ground in assigning the main entry to a
collector of a group of items that are cataloged on a collective
record. We are following AACR2 when possible, but, AACR2 does *not*
address collection level cataloging at all. LC does have guidelines (in
the cataloging Service bulletin, no. 78 (Fall 1997)). To quote from it:
"Collections can be so diverse that title main entry is often appropriate
... 1XX main entries do, however, occur ... In addition, "Archives,
Personal Papers, and Manuscripts" permits personal or corporate name main
entry for materials cataloged archivally under the following circumstances:
...
2. when the collection is known under the name of the person who made the
collection, main entry is under the name of that person, followed by the
relator, 'collector'."
Among the examples are:
110 2 Bollingen Foundation
245 00 $k Records, $f 1939-1973.
(Rules used: APPM)
100 1 Purland, Theodocius, $ecollector.
245 00 $a Collection of materials on mesmerism, $f 1842-1854.
(Rules used: APPM)
I would say that we are following LC in an area that AACR2 has not addressed.
Jane
Jane Gillis | Rare Book Cataloger| Sterling Memorial Library
Yale University | New Haven CT 06520
(203)432-2633 (voice) | (203)432-4047 (fax) | jane.gillis@yale.edu
At 01:14 PM 1/22/2004 Thursday-0700, Robert Maxwell wrote:
>Arguments have been put forward that it would be logical or a good idea
>(or enlightened or special :-) to assign main entry to the collector of a
>group of items that are to be cataloged on a collective record. These
>arguments are certainly persuasive, but in order to be convincing to the
>editors (I think ...), giving main entry to collector has to comply with
>the principles we've all agreed lie behind DCRM(B). One of the main
>principles is:
>
>"DCRM rules shall conform to the structure and language of the latest
>revision of AACR2 to the extent possible ... DCRM shall not introduce
>rules that are not required by differences expected between rare and
>general materials." (see
>http://www.folger.edu/bsc/dcrb/wg1finaldraft20030313.doc; this language
>will appear in DCRM).
>
>As I say, persuasive arguments have been made that doing this might be a
>good idea, but I have not heard any persuasive argument (yet) that
>introducing this rule, which *would* produce different results than AACR2
>would, *is* "required by differences expected between rare and general
>materials." A cataloger of general materials following AACR2 making a
>collective record for a group of items (whether it be a scrapbook, a bunch
>of stuff in the backlog, or a discrete collection of published books)
>would not assign main entry to the collector under AACR2 rules. The
>argument that this follows archival practice is only slightly relevant
>since we are not promulgating archival rules but rare materials rules. The
>principles for DCRM rule forumlation do not say "DCRM shall not introduce
>rules that are not required by differences between *archival* and general
>materials" but "*rare* and general materials."
>
>I am a great fan of the main entry and am not on the side of those in the
>larger cataloging community who think the concept should be abolished.
>However, I don't see, in this case, a reason for departing from AACR2 that
>is required by the *rare* nature of the materials. At least I don't see
>this yet. It would be more helpful to me to hear arguments, if any, for
>this aspect of the problem, than to hear arguments that "it makes sense"
>or "it's a good idea."
>
>And by the way, lest any of you are worried about access (rather than TYPE
>of entry), DCRM *will* call for an access point for the collector (if
>any); the debate here is only on the narrow point of whether that access
>point should be main or added entry.
>
>Bob
>
>Robert L. Maxwell
>Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
>Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
>6728 Harold B. Lee Library
>Brigham Young University
>Provo, UT 84602
>(801)422-5568
--=====================_30091188==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
I think we are on solid enough ground in assigning the main
entry to a collector of a group of items that are cataloged on a
collective record. We are following AACR2 when possible, but, AACR2
does *not* address collection level cataloging at all. LC does have
guidelines (in the cataloging Service bulletin, no. 78 (Fall
1997)). To quote from it:
"Collections can be so diverse that title main entry is often
appropriate ... 1XX main entries do, however, occur ... In addition,
"Archives, Personal Papers, and Manuscripts" permits personal
or corporate name main entry for materials cataloged archivally under the
following circumstances:
...
2. when the collection is known under the name of the person who made the
collection, main entry is under the name of that person, followed by the
relator, 'collector'."
Among the examples are:
110 2 Bollingen Foundation
245 00 $k Records, $f 1939-1973.
(Rules used: APPM)
100 1 Purland, Theodocius, $ecollector.
245 00 $a Collection of materials on mesmerism, $f 1842-1854.
(Rules used: APPM)
I would say that we are following LC in an area that AACR2 has not
addressed.
Jane
Jane Gillis | Rare Book Cataloger| Sterling Memorial
Library
Yale University | New Haven CT 06520
(203)432-2633 (voice) | (203)432-4047 (fax) |
jane.gillis@yale.edu
At 01:14 PM 1/22/2004 Thursday-0700, Robert Maxwell
wrote:
Arguments have been put forward
that it would be logical or a good idea (or enlightened or special :-) to
assign main entry to the collector of a group of items that are to be
cataloged on a collective record. These arguments are certainly
persuasive, but in order to be convincing to the editors (I think ...),
giving main entry to collector has to comply with the principles we've
all agreed lie behind DCRM(B). One of the main principles is:
"DCRM rules shall conform to the structure and language of the
latest revision of AACR2 to the extent possible ... DCRM shall not
introduce rules that are not required by differences expected between
rare and general materials." (see
http://www.folger.edu/bsc/dcrb/wg1finaldraft20030313.doc; this language
will appear in DCRM).
As I say, persuasive arguments have been made that doing this might be a
good idea, but I have not heard any persuasive argument (yet) that
introducing this rule, which *would* produce different results than AACR2
would, *is* "required by differences expected between rare and
general materials." A cataloger of general materials following AACR2
making a collective record for a group of items (whether it be a
scrapbook, a bunch of stuff in the backlog, or a discrete collection of
published books) would not assign main entry to the collector under AACR2
rules. The argument that this follows archival practice is only slightly
relevant since we are not promulgating archival rules but rare materials
rules. The principles for DCRM rule forumlation do not say "DCRM
shall not introduce rules that are not required by differences between
*archival* and general materials" but "*rare* and general
materials."
I am a great fan of the main entry and am not on the side of those in the
larger cataloging community who think the concept should be abolished.
However, I don't see, in this case, a reason for departing from AACR2
that is required by the *rare* nature of the materials. At least I don't
see this yet. It would be more helpful to me to hear arguments, if any,
for this aspect of the problem, than to hear arguments that "it
makes sense" or "it's a good idea."
And by the way, lest any of you are worried about access (rather than
TYPE of entry), DCRM *will* call for an access point for the collector
(if any); the debate here is only on the narrow point of whether that
access point should be main or added entry.
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568
--=====================_30091188==_.ALT--
From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Thu Jan 22 21:52:11 2004
From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Jain Fletcher)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:52:11 -0800
Subject: [DCRB-L] Main entry for collectors
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20040122153003.00badf28@pop.service.ohio-state.edu>
References: <4.3.2.7.2.20040122153003.00badf28@pop.service.ohio-state.edu>
Message-ID: <77172812.1074779531@yrl-s-spc304.library.ucla.edu>
Hi,
Let me add to this (and to my own message which just got distributed),
when I said I "applied AACR2 concepts", I basically meant the same guidance
that Beth has summarized below. In library school (with Drs. Svenonius and
Intner as two of my cataloging teachers, as well as such luminaries as
Martha Yee as classmates for advanced seminars on non-book cataloging) and
in subsequent experience with a whole host of non-book cataloging, I have
found that many people take the broad view of certain principles in AACR2,
such as those which Beth has indicated here. Please remember (or, please
be aware) that AACR2 is more book-biased than anything else. Aside from
its chapters and separate guidance given for non-book material, the framers
of AACR2 maddenly tend to think in terms of books when making general
rules. So, non-book people have had to develop a broader view of its
guidance at times. Much of this broader application has actually been
addressed in rulebooks, such as APPM. (This is, I imagine, the reason APPM
was put forth as one rationale for accepting collector main entry.) Still,
in response to Bob's message with more explanation of the reasons behind
the editors' concerns, I think it would be worth understanding that there
is a rather large group of non-book users of AACR2 who have to apply rules
more broadly because of their material doesn't always neatly fit into the
boxes AACR2 has constructed. (The best-case scenario is that AACR3 will
address this book bias and fix it, but failing that, I hope the DCRM(B)
editors will understand that collection-level cataloging falls into that
other category of material needing broader application.)
Once again, thanks for asking. As usual, these discussions really make
us think!! --Jain
--On Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:58 PM -0500 Beth Russell
wrote:
> Robert & everyone,
>
> I just spent a few fruitless moments with AACR2 looking for guidance in
> this matter. The only helpful rule I can find is 21.1A1, which states
> that "a personal author is the person chiefly responsible for the
> creation of the intellectual or artistic content of a work." 21.1A2 then
> directs us to "enter a work by one or more persons under the heading for
> the personal author (see 21.4A) the principle personal author (see 21.6B)
> or the probable personal author (see 21.5B.)"
>
> I may very well be overlooking specific rules in AACR2 which prohibit
> catalogers from concluding that a collector, in a given context, is a
> personal author, chiefly responsible for the content of a work. If there
> are no such rules, and if "our" shared understanding of personal
> authorship equates compilation of a collection with creator-ship, I would
> think AACR2 is broad enough to allow it.
>
> I now await the replies of those who "speak AACR" better than I!
>
> Beth
>
>
> At 01:14 PM 1/22/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>> Arguments have been put forward that it would be logical or a good idea
>> (or enlightened or special :-) to assign main entry to the collector of
>> a group of items that are to be cataloged on a collective record. These
>> arguments are certainly persuasive, but in order to be convincing to the
>> editors (I think ...), giving main entry to collector has to comply with
>> the principles we've all agreed lie behind DCRM(B). One of the main
>> principles is:
>>
>> "DCRM rules shall conform to the structure and language of the latest
>> revision of AACR2 to the extent possible ... DCRM shall not introduce
>> rules that are not required by differences expected between rare and
>> general materials." (see
>> http://www.folger.edu/bsc/dcrb/wg1finaldraft20030313.doc; this language
>> will appear in DCRM).
>>
>> As I say, persuasive arguments have been made that doing this might be a
>> good idea, but I have not heard any persuasive argument (yet) that
>> introducing this rule, which *would* produce different results than
>> AACR2 would, *is* "required by differences expected between rare and
>> general materials." A cataloger of general materials following AACR2
>> making a collective record for a group of items (whether it be a
>> scrapbook, a bunch of stuff in the backlog, or a discrete collection of
>> published books) would not assign main entry to the collector under
>> AACR2 rules. The argument that this follows archival practice is only
>> slightly relevant since we are not promulgating archival rules but rare
>> materials rules. The principles for DCRM rule forumlation do not say
>> "DCRM shall not introduce rules that are not required by differences
>> between *archival* and general materials" but "*rare* and general
>> materials."
>>
>> I am a great fan of the main entry and am not on the side of those in
>> the larger cataloging community who think the concept should be
>> abolished. However, I don't see, in this case, a reason for departing
>> from AACR2 that is required by the *rare* nature of the materials. At
>> least I don't see this yet. It would be more helpful to me to hear
>> arguments, if any, for this aspect of the problem, than to hear
>> arguments that "it makes sense" or "it's a good idea."
>>
>> And by the way, lest any of you are worried about access (rather than
>> TYPE of entry), DCRM *will* call for an access point for the collector
>> (if any); the debate here is only on the narrow point of whether that
>> access point should be main or added entry.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> Robert L. Maxwell
>> Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
>> Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
>> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
>> Brigham Young University
>> Provo, UT 84602
>> (801)422-5568
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: dcrb-l-admin@lib.byu.edu
>> > [mailto:dcrb-l-admin@lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of R. Arvid Nelsen
>> > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 11:55 AM
>> > To: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu
>> > Subject: Re: [DCRB-L] Main entry for collectors
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks for this clear line of argumentation. I was debating
>> > with myself
>> > the need for a follow-up to Jackie's e-mail, whose argument was merely
>> > we can be foreward thinking or backward, without a clear
>> > argument of the
>> > merits of or need for the main entry. I also think some explanation is
>> > required to counteract the argument also put forth that the
>> > statement is
>> > taken from APPM and therefore (?) can be dropped.
>> >
>> > Kudos!
>> > Arvid
>> >
>> > R. Arvid Nelsen
>> > Special Collections Cataloger
>> > University of California, San Diego
>> > Mandeville Special Collections Library, 0175S
>> > 9500 Gilman Drive
>> > La Jolla, CA 92093-0175
>> > 858/534-6766
>> >
>> >>>> russell.363@osu.edu 01/22/04 10:22AM >>>
>> > Others more knowledgeable than myself have already described the
>> > importance
>> > of "collector" main entry. I don't know if my contribution is
>> > persuasive,
>> > but it is passionately held!
>> >
>> > From a purely theoretical point of view, the "collector" is in fact,
>> > the
>> > CREATOR of the collection, which is the ITEM being cataloged. There is
>> > only
>> > one item being cataloged in a collection-level record (the collection)
>> > and
>> > if one individual is responsible for assembling its contents in its
>> > current
>> > state, this activity surely merits main entry, so long as we maintain
>> > the
>> > concept of main entry in our cataloging rules. If one were cataloging a
>> >
>> > scrapbook, for example, the compiler of the scrapbook would play the
>> > same
>> > role (and "deserve" main entry in the same way) although the individual
>> >
>> > components of the scrapbook (newspaper clippings, programs, photos,
>> > etc.)
>> > would have originated from many different sources (which might be
>> > traced
>> > themselves in 6xx or 7xx fields.)
>> >
>> > It also bears restating that both APPM rule 2.1A4 and our draft
>> > guidelines
>> > call for the addition of the term "collector" after the main entry in
>> > these
>> > cases, which should clarify the role for anyone who is perplexed in
>> > looking
>> > at these records. One would also hope there would be some explanatory
>> > note
>> > in the body of the collection record, if necessary. Perhaps in our
>> > discussion of field 545 (biographical or historical note) or 520 / 505
>> >
>> > (summary or contents) we could provide an example to illustrate this,
>> > along
>> > the lines of my completely spontaneous italicized addition to the
>> > example
>> > below:
>> > 520 Consists principally of maps of the United States as a whole.
>> > Also
>> > includes maps of sections of the United States and individual states
>> > and
>> > cities, showing railroads or railroad related information. The
>> > collection
>> > was assembled by John Smith in the mid 19th century, and includes
>> > materials
>> > collected during his business travels. $b Includes some maps of London
>> >
>> > environs, western Canada, and Europe.
>> >
>> > Beth
>> >
>> >
>> > At 05:05 PM 1/21/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>> >
>> >> Main entry for collection-level cataloging
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Once again, I apologize for forgetting to discuss the proposed DCRM(B)
>> >
>> >> appendix on collection-level cataloging. The editors (John Attig, Bob
>> >
>> >> Maxwell, Joe Springer, Manon Théroux, and me) did discuss it during
>> > our
>> >> day and a half meeting after the conference in San Diego. The issue of
>> >
>> >> collector main entry is one we would like to address sooner rather
>> > than later.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I don't have the CSB on collection-level records in front of me, but
>> >> whether or not I'm right in assuming that the instruction for giving
>> > the
>> >> collector the main entry came from there, the editors need to be
>> > persuaded
>> >> that this is appropriate for the cataloging of printed materials.
>> > Section
>> >> D on "Elements of the catalog record", a) on 1XX field: Main entry
>> > heading
>> >> starts out well by emphasizing that title main entry is appropriate
>> > for
>> >> many collections, and for requiring that all items comprised by the
>> >> collection record have the same personal or corporate authorship. This
>> > is
>> >> in compliance with AACR2.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> We question the 2nd paragraph of section a) instructing that if a
>> >> collection is known by the name of a collector, generally enter that
>> > name
>> >> in a 1xx field. The editors are considering deleting that provision.
>> >> Naturally in such a case, the collector may be entered in a 7xx field.
>> >
>> >> Those of you with persuasive and/or passionate opinions please give us
>> >
>> >> your best shot. To DCRB-L please, so everyone can participate in the
>> >> discussion.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ________________________
>> >>
>> >> Deborah J. Leslie
>> >>
>> >> Folger Library
>> >>
>> >> djleslie@folger.edu
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > ----------------------
>> > Beth M. Russell
>> > Head, Special Collections Cataloging
>> > Assistant Professor
>> > The Ohio State University Libraries
>> > 1858 Neil Avenue Mall
>> > Columbus OH 43210-1286
>> > 614-247-7463
>> > FAX 614-292-2015
>> > russell.363@osu.edu
>> > ----------------------
>> >
>> >
>
> ----------------------
> Beth M. Russell
> Head, Special Collections Cataloging
> Assistant Professor
> The Ohio State University Libraries
> 1858 Neil Avenue Mall
> Columbus OH 43210-1286
> 614-247-7463
> FAX 614-292-2015
> russell.363@osu.edu
> ----------------------
>
>
Jain Fletcher
Head, Collections & Technical Services Division
Department of Special Collections
Young Research Library - UCLA
Box 951575
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1575
v: (310) 794-4096
f: (310) 206-1864
e: jfletchr@library.ucla.edu
From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Thu Jan 22 22:45:19 2004
From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Jackie Dooley)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:45:19 -0800
Subject: [DCRB-L] Main entry for collectors
References: <4.3.2.7.2.20040122125644.00b607d8@pop.service.ohio-state.edu>
<4.3.2.7.2.20040122125644.00b607d8@pop.service.ohio-state.edu> <4.3.2.7.2.20040122161448.00b77010@pop.service.ohio-state.edu>
Message-ID: <4010527F.BC015DF7@lib.uci.edu>
Indeed, Jain's explication is extremely useful. But I would caution against
turning "known" into "well known" or "very well known," as some of both
Jain and Beth's comments have implied (and forgive me if I'm misreading
your intent). A collection can be both minor in significance and unknown
known beyond a small circle of people who are aware of its existence, but
if that circle "knows" the collection by its donor, then in my view, the
rule still applies and qualifies the collection for main entry by collector.
-Jackie
Beth Russell wrote:
Thanks to Jain for reminding us that the collector
as main entry question only applies "when the collection
is known by the name of a collector. "
Libraries will likely create more collection-level records for materials
which are NOT known by the name of a collector. Additionally, a given collection
might have been "created" by several donors/collectors. In either of these
cases, title main entry, adding a 7xx with the appropriate relator code/term
is not only much more logical, but appears to be mandated by both APPM
and AACR2.
Beth
At 12:59 PM 1/22/2004 -0800, you wrote:
Hello all,
I think Beth has put together a good rationale here--it's the
kind of thinking that people working on collections have to go through
all the time. Not being an avid follower of APPM myself (in other words,
I don't always do something just because APPM says so), when faced with
such situations, I try to apply AACR2 concepts about main entry to them.
In that context, I have found that it is generally a combination (and weighting)
of factors about each collection (and its known collector) that helps determine
the placement of a collector's name in the record. Sometimes it's main
entry, other times it's added entry. The issue of concern that Deborah
has described (where both the collector and the collection are quite well
known) would almost always result in collector main entry in my own determination
of the factors involved. The only thing I can think of that would
bump the collector into added entry status would be if the collection was
a compilation of items *all* by the same author/composer/artist etc. (where
I think the author's creative input would trump the collector's).
But please note, the rule states that this is to be applied
only for collections that are well known by their collector. In cases
where the collector's work is not known or less known, it should be quite
sufficient to put the collector into a 7xx field, with $e collector.
Because (speaking about "advanced thinking"--even though this is a concept
Dr. Svenonius had us consider years ago in cataloging class): with online
catalogs, what does it really matter *where* the collector is placed in
a record, as long as s/he is there?
Just to put this a more concrete basis for people's consideration,
I thought I'd put forth an example of a well-known collector's collection.
For my own thinking of this issue, I simply put UCLA's Michael Sadleir
collection of 19th century British fiction to the test. (I'm pretty
sure this is well known ;-) Now, if UCLA
had not cataloged each book in this collection and instead had made a single
collection record for it--or even If UCLA now decided to make an adjunct
collection-level record to this collection--can anyone imagine *not* having
Sadleir as the main entry? For one (of course) there is the generic
aspect that comes if entered only by its title: Collection of 19th century
British fiction. While it is fine to enter collections with a generic
title (esp. when the collector is not known), isn't it true that this is
quite a particular collection, put together by a known expert on the subject
and therefore... (repeat m/e rationale here)?
Thanks for asking Deborah (and editors). I would love
to hear about how this comes out.--Jain
--On Thursday, January 22, 2004 1:22 PM -0500 Beth Russell <russell.363@osu.edu>
wrote:
Others more knowledgeable than myself have already
described the
importance of "collector" main entry. I don't know if my contribution
is
persuasive, but it is passionately held!
From a purely theoretical point of view, the "collector" is in
fact, the
CREATOR of the collection, which is the ITEM being cataloged. There
is
only one item being cataloged in a collection-level record (the
collection) and if one individual is responsible for assembling its
contents in its current state, this activity surely merits main entry,
so
long as we maintain the concept of main entry in our cataloging rules.
If
one were cataloging a scrapbook, for example, the compiler of the
scrapbook would play the same role (and "deserve" main entry in the
same
way) although the individual components of the scrapbook (newspaper
clippings, programs, photos, etc.) would have originated from many
different sources (which might be traced themselves in 6xx or 7xx
fields.)
It also bears restating that both APPM rule 2.1A4 and our draft
guidelines call for the addition of the term "collector" after the
main
entry in these cases, which should clarify the role for anyone who
is
perplexed in looking at these records. One would also hope there would
be
some explanatory note in the body of the collection record, if necessary.
Perhaps in our discussion of field 545 (biographical or historical
note)
or 520 / 505 (summary or contents) we could provide an example to
illustrate this, along the lines of my completely spontaneous italicized
addition to the example below:
520 Consists principally of maps of the United
States as a whole.
Also includes maps of sections of the United States and individual
states
and cities, showing railroads or railroad related information. The
collection was assembled by John Smith in the mid 19th century, and
includes materials collected during his business travels. $b Includes
some maps of London environs, western Canada, and Europe.
Beth
At 05:05 PM 1/21/2004 -0500, you wrote:
Main entry for collection-level cataloging
Once again, I apologize for forgetting to discuss the proposed DCRM(B)
appendix on collection-level cataloging. The editors (John Attig, Bob
Maxwell, Joe Springer, Manon Théroux, and me) did discuss it
during our
day and a half meeting after the conference in San Diego. The issue
of
collector main entry is one we would like to address sooner rather
than
later.
I don't have the CSB on collection-level records in front of me, but
whether or not I'm right in assuming that the instruction for giving
the
collector the main entry came from there, the editors need to be
persuaded that this is appropriate for the cataloging of printed
materials. Section D on "Elements of the catalog record", a) on 1XX
field: Main entry heading starts out well by emphasizing that title
main
entry is appropriate for many collections, and for requiring that all
items comprised by the collection record have the same personal or
corporate authorship. This is in compliance with AACR2.
We question the 2nd paragraph of section a) instructing that if a
collection is known by the name of a collector, generally enter that
name
in a 1xx field. The editors are considering deleting that provision.
Naturally in such a case, the collector may be entered in a 7xx field.
Those of you with persuasive and/or passionate opinions please give
us
your best shot. To DCRB-L please, so everyone can participate in the
discussion.
________________________
Deborah J. Leslie
Folger Library
djleslie@folger.edu
----------------------
Beth M. Russell
Head, Special Collections Cataloging
Assistant Professor
The Ohio State University Libraries
1858 Neil Avenue Mall
Columbus OH 43210-1286
614-247-7463
FAX 614-292-2015
russell.363@osu.edu
----------------------
Jain Fletcher
Head, Collections & Technical Services Division
Department of Special Collections
Young Research Library - UCLA
Box 951575
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1575
v: (310) 794-4096
f: (310) 206-1864
e: jfletchr@library.ucla.edu
----------------------Beth M. RussellHead, Special Collections CatalogingAssistant
ProfessorThe Ohio State University Libraries1858 Neil Avenue MallColumbus
OH 43210-1286614-247-7463FAX 614-292-2015russell.363@osu.edu----------------------
--
Jackie M. Dooley, Head of Special
Collections and Archives
UCI Libraries, P.O. Box 19557, Univ. of California, Irvine, CA 92623-9557
Internet: jmdooley@uci.edu Phone: 949/824-4935
Fax: 949/824-2472
From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Fri Jan 23 15:01:00 2004
From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Laurence Creider)
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:01:00 -0700 (MST)
Subject: [DCRB-L] Main entry for collectors
In-Reply-To: <88539F4A9A5C3041B06A234AA2ABDB58015D9ECD@portia.folger.edu>
Message-ID:
This has been a great discussion, and I've gone back and forth on what I
think about collector as main entry for collections. My instinctive
position favors using the collector as main entry under the limit
situations given in the CSB. However, when I try to put my reasoning into
words I am finding it very hard to justify that decision. Let me try to
describe my reasoning here; I apologize for the length of this as well as
for describing basic principles we all know. I'm trying to explain my
reasoning.
First, my understanding of the manuals for special constituencies that
have proliferated since AACR2 (DCRB, Map Cataloging Manual, Conser Manual,
etc.) is that they combine a freedom to differ from the provisions of part
1 of AACR2 with fairly strict adherence to part 2 of the code, which
allows the addition of extra access points as long as those are
constructed according to AACR2. I am reluctant to start messing with
part 2 of AACR. APPM is the only one of these that significantly differs
from AACR2 in the choice of main entry, and even it conforms to AACR2 in
the cataloger is to formulate headings. Frankly, I think that APPM's
attempt to provide a "simplified" version of part 2 is not successful.
Certainly, it hasn't been emulated. Its main differences, however, are
the result of fundamental principles.
The problem with the CSB provision for main entry under collector is that
it involves the very question of what authorship is. The bibliographic
tradition at the base of Anglo-American cataloging is based on the
principle of the work and the identification of those responsible for its
content and identity. That is why films are entered under title (there
are too many people and corporate bodies involved in the creation of the
content for one to be identified as the creator). In this
Cutter-Lubetzky-AACR tradition, organizers, such as editors, are much less
privileged than authors. In the bibliographic tradition, such figures are
treated as editors who cannot be responsible for the intellectual content.
The archival tradition's basic principle of organization is the identity
of a group of documents as a provenanced group. Using this principle, the
question of who is intellectually responsible for the content of the
collection (or its parts) is not nearly as relevant as the question of who
is responsible for the creation and organization of the collection as
collection.
Every justification that I can think of for entering these collections
under the name of the collector involves fudging with cataloging
principles. The closest that I can come to is the notion that compilers
of bibliographies are the authors of their bibliographies, but such
bibliographers generally do more than edit or collect an existing list.
They are responsible for the content of entries. One could argue that
entering a collection under its collector is similar to entering a catalog
or a book of reproductions of the paintings in a museum under the
corporate body that owns the items. This is essentially arguing from an
analogy to another analogy (an person is analogous to corporate authors
who are viewed as analogous to personal authors). Arguments based on the
notion that this is how people will look for the collection are ultimately
not helpful because they will lead to contradictory decisions by
catalogers that only confuse the users. [Side rant: I think that one of
the most unfortunate phrases in the history of cataloging is "the
convenience of the user," and I was upset to see it given a place of honor
in the new "Berlin Principles."] At any rate, one could equally argue
that what the users look for is the collection as a title or entity that
should be established as a uniform title or a corporate name. Are people
going to look for the Otto F. Ege Palaegraphy Portfolio under title,
corporate body or Ege, Otto F.? See http://www.umilta.net/ege.html for a
discussion.
Then there is the question: what are we describing? We are not cataloging
the individual items, which have persons or bodies responsible for their
content. We are describing these items as collections. Whether or not
the materials are published is, as everyone commenting so far has
recognized, irrelevant. So, are these collections archives that have been
created by an individual or are they groups of materials that someone has
gathered and arranged, not unlike a microform set of 19th century women's
diaries? Catalogers may legitimately differ in their answers depending on
the institutional context and on the nature of the particular collection.
I don't believe the question is whether we will be "mainstream" or in a
backwater. The question is which tradition we follow, bibliographic or
archival? At some point, the two traditions may be able to do a better
job of merging, and John Attig is undoubtedly correct that at some point
cataloging theory will need to encompass archival description. Catalogers
and archivists, however, haven't been able to devise a general theory that
will encompass both. My experience with formulating rules for manuscript
cataloging makes me think that this process is going to be more difficult
than we would like or even think. There are differences not only in
principles of organization and entry but also in the function and nature
of the catalog record (transcription of information existing in multiple
copies vs. construction by the archivist of information describing a
unique item).
DCRM(B) can follow the CSB's view on collector as main entry, but if so, I
think we need to be explicit about why we are doing this and that we are
following archival principles here. However, I am not sure that we need
to actually address this question in our rules. There are no other
separate provisions for main entry in DCRM(B). Nor, if I remember
correctly, are there discussions of main entry in the drafts for other
DCRM modules. We could be silent and let catalogers use their judgment.
If a some institutions find that they wish to treat these as archival
entities and enter a few of these collections under the name of the
collector, I respect their judgment. That is what living in a cooperative
environment means. Fortunately, the number of collections that will be
both cataloged at the collection level and known primarily by the name of
the collector is surely going to be quite small (I think Jackie Dooley is
wrong in suggesting that "known" can refer to a small group of insiders.
"Known" in a cataloging sense usually implies some evidence in reference
sources, which could include articles citing the collection and existing
library descriptions of it). The provision of added entries makes our
decision here less crucial as well. Very rarely will anyone be doing
shared cataloging using these records, and the worst that will happen is
that those of us who look for examples of how others deal with a
particular cataloging situation (i.e., all of us) will have to think about
what we are doing.
Laurence S. Creider
Head, General Cataloging Unit
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM 88003
Work: 505-646-4707
Fax: 505-646-7477
lcreider@lib.nmsu.edu
From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Sat Jan 24 22:03:45 2004
From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Richard Noble)
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 17:03:45 -0500
Subject: [DCRB-L] Main entry for collectors
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20040122125644.00b607d8@pop.service.ohio-state.e
du>
References: <88539F4A9A5C3041B06A234AA2ABDB58015D9ECD@portia.folger.edu>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20040124160438.00a09210@postoffice.brown.edu>
--=====================_442754272==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Mere lucubrations:
Beth is dead right about the rationale for collector main entry in APPM;
but collections of published materials, as opposed to archival materials,
fall into a kind of grey area, largely because there's a tension between
our notions of main entry for individual published items, or items
published in some sense collectively, as against main entry for archival
collections.
If I recall, the examples in CSB are entered under title--but these are not
the sort of collections addressed in APPM. The LC guidelines were devised
for the purpose of creating collective records for bodies of materials for
which item-level cataloging was judged to be uneconomical (something to do
with clearing arrearages...). The "collections" thus created within the
catalog and on the shelves are in themselves of no interest as such.
Main entry is not dead. To conceptualize it, ask yourself what the entry
point should be for a single-entry book catalogue, and by extension, what
the order should be for the elements of reference citations. Take, for
example, the case of the Roosenwald Collection at LC, for which there is a
corporate heading "Lessing J. Rosenwald Collection (Library of Congress)".
From the point of view of this discussion, LC finesses the problem by
aving only an authority record for the collection itself. As an "adequate"
verbal formula it's entered directly; there's also a 410 "Library of
Congress. Lessing J. Rosenwald Collection", which suggests the direction
one might go in if searching for an alternate main entry.
The question is, what do you think people might look for in that one-entry
list? Where in my list of references at the back of my book would I want to
list the collection as a resource? Where does the identity of the
collection begin? Well, really, with Lessing J. Rosenwald, or course; but
if I were looking for a collection, as a catalogue-naive but otherwise
intelligent user (something that's hard for most of us to imagine, I
suspect), I think I might begin with the institution in which the
collection resides, if not with Rosenwald himself. Sadly, searching on
Rosenwald's name as author/creator will not retrieve the individual items
or the authority record in the LC database--which does suggest that a
collection-level record, with whatever main entry, might be a useful
addition to the LC catalogue, and to OCLC and RLIN too.
I'd have to infer, if a 710 heading is taken as a kind of reference
citation, that LC would enter the collection under title, with a 700 for
Rosenwald (please--and not just a 600). Frankly, I'm not sure that the
choice is ever going to get beyond arbitrariness. Also, I wonder how
necessary it is to be absolutely prescriptive about all this: these will
never be shared records, though of course it's always more convenient when
people enter similar things similarly in large databases.
At Brown we've been using the citation form as 110 main entry. This was my
idea, 12 years ago, and I now think it may have been rather silly. There
seemed to be a logic to "advancing" a heading that is otherwise a mere
added entry, when the record represents the collection itself, but it
really has no functional advantage unless one could narrow a search to main
entries. (Is there any catalogue that includes that option??)
I suppose I've mentioned Brown's documentation for set-collection records,
but here's the URL again:
http://www.brown.edu/Facilities/University_Library/Catalog/setrecords.html
I'd hope that whatever the Committee comes up with will not cast us down
too deep into the netherworld of heterodoxy (though I guess I'm agnostic
about main entry for these things).
At 1/22/04 01:22 PM -0500, Beth Russell wrote, among other sensible things:
> From a purely theoretical point of view, the "collector" is in fact, the
> CREATOR of the collection, which is the ITEM being cataloged. There is
> only one item being cataloged in a collection-level record (the
> collection) and if one individual is responsible for assembling its
> contents in its current state, this activity surely merits main entry, so
> long as we maintain the concept of main entry in our cataloging rules.
RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOK CATALOGUER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-2093 : RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU
--=====================_442754272==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Mere lucubrations:
Beth is dead right about the rationale for collector main entry in APPM;
but collections of published materials, as opposed to archival materials,
fall into a kind of grey area, largely because there's a tension between
our notions of main entry for individual published items, or items
published in some sense collectively, as against main entry for archival
collections.
If I recall, the examples in CSB are entered under title--but these are
not the sort of collections addressed in APPM. The LC guidelines were
devised for the purpose of creating collective records for bodies of
materials for which item-level cataloging was judged to be uneconomical
(something to do with clearing arrearages...). The
"collections" thus created within the catalog and on the
shelves are in themselves of no interest as such.
Main entry is not dead. To conceptualize it, ask yourself what the entry
point should be for a single-entry book catalogue, and by extension, what
the order should be for the elements of reference citations. Take, for
example, the case of the Roosenwald Collection at LC, for which there is
a corporate heading "Lessing J. Rosenwald Collection (Library of
Congress)". From the point of view of this discussion, LC finesses
the problem by having only an authority record for the collection itself.
As an "adequate" verbal formula it's entered directly; there's
also a 410 "Library of Congress. Lessing J. Rosenwald
Collection", which suggests the direction one might go in if
searching for an alternate main entry.
The question is, what do you think people might look for in that
one-entry list? Where in my list of references at the back of my book
would I want to list the collection as a resource? Where does the
identity of the collection begin? Well, really, with Lessing J.
Rosenwald, or course; but if I were looking for a collection, as a
catalogue-naive but otherwise intelligent user (something that's hard for
most of us to imagine, I suspect), I think I might begin with the
institution in which the collection resides, if not with Rosenwald
himself. Sadly, searching on Rosenwald's name as author/creator will not
retrieve the individual items or the authority record in the LC
database--which does suggest that a collection-level record, with
whatever main entry, might be a useful addition to the LC catalogue, and
to OCLC and RLIN too.
I'd have to infer, if a 710 heading is taken as a kind of reference
citation, that LC would enter the collection under title, with a 700 for
Rosenwald (please--and not just a 600). Frankly, I'm not sure that the
choice is ever going to get beyond arbitrariness. Also, I wonder how
necessary it is to be absolutely prescriptive about all this: these will
never be shared records, though of course it's always more convenient
when people enter similar things similarly in large databases.
At Brown we've been using the citation form as 110 main entry. This was
my idea, 12 years ago, and I now think it may have been rather silly.
There seemed to be a logic to "advancing" a heading that is
otherwise a mere added entry, when the record represents the collection
itself, but it really has no functional advantage unless one could narrow
a search to main entries. (Is there any catalogue that includes that
option??)
I suppose I've mentioned Brown's documentation for set-collection
records, but here's the URL again:
http://www.brown.edu/Facilities/University_Library/Catalog/setrecords.html
I'd hope that whatever the Committee comes up with will not cast us
down too deep into the netherworld of heterodoxy (though I guess I'm
agnostic about main entry for these things).
At 1/22/04 01:22 PM -0500, Beth Russell wrote, among other sensible
things:
From a purely theoretical point of view, the
"collector" is in fact, the CREATOR of the collection, which is
the ITEM being cataloged. There is only one item being cataloged in a
collection-level record (the collection) and if one individual is
responsible for assembling its contents in its current state, this
activity surely merits main entry, so long as we maintain the concept of
main entry in our cataloging rules.
RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOK CATALOGUER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN
UNIVERSITY
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-2093 :
RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU
--=====================_442754272==_.ALT--
From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Sun Jan 25 02:35:14 2004
From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Deborah J. Leslie)
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 21:35:14 -0500
Subject: [DCRB-L] Collector main entry
Message-ID: <88539F4A9A5C3041B06A234AA2ABDB58015D9EE7@portia.folger.edu>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C3E2EB.DC70E841
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_002_01C3E2EB.DC70E841"
------_=_NextPart_002_01C3E2EB.DC70E841
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There has been an impressive amount of talented thought and insight so
far on the discussion about collector main entry, for which I'm glad. I
know I will spend more time perusing and studying the various messages
and arguments. In the meantime, I'm toying with the idea of considering
collections of printed materials analogous more to monographic series
than to archives. The effect would be to confirm our original proposal,
to only give a name main entry when all items of the "series" are by
the same person or emanate from the same body. But like Bob and Larry et
al., I believe it is preferable to have principled justifications for
changed or new rules.
=20
Let me chime in, too, about the importance of the concept of main entry.
It no longer carries the singular importance it did in the book
catalogue days, but (I think this was argued by Michael Gorman in an
article I read way back in library school) there is still a requirement
for a "citation package." The need for a consistent, reliable, and
collocative way to cite works has not diminished. And since we are not
about to create title or name/title authority records for every item we
catalogue, our choices for main entry should satisfy this requirement.=20
______________________
Deborah J. Leslie
Folger Library
djleslie@folger.edu
www.folger.edu =20
=20
------_=_NextPart_002_01C3E2EB.DC70E841
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There has =
been an
impressive amount of talented thought and insight so far on the =
discussion about
collector main entry, for which I'm glad. I know I will spend more time
perusing and studying the various messages and arguments. In the =
meantime, I'm
toying with the idea of considering collections of printed materials =
analogous
more to monographic series than to archives. The effect would be to =
confirm our
original proposal, to only give a name main entry when all items =
of the
"series" are by the same person or emanate from the same body. =
But
like Bob and Larry et al., I believe it is preferable to have principled =
justifications
for changed or new rules.
<=
/font>
Let me chime =
in, too,
about the importance of the concept of main entry. It no longer carries =
the singular
importance it did in the book catalogue days, but (I think this was =
argued by Michael
Gorman in an article I read way back in library school) there is still a =
requirement
for a "citation package." The need for a consistent, reliable, =
and
collocative way to cite works has not diminished. And since we are not =
about to
create title or name/title authority records for every item we =
catalogue, our
choices for main entry should satisfy this requirement. =
______________________
Deborah J. Leslie
Folger Library
djleslie@folger.edu
www.folger.edu
=00
------_=_NextPart_002_01C3E2EB.DC70E841--
------_=_NextPart_001_01C3E2EB.DC70E841
Content-Type: image/jpeg;
name="image001.jpg"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID:
Content-Description: image001.jpg
Content-Location: image001.jpg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------_=_NextPart_001_01C3E2EB.DC70E841--
From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Mon Jan 26 14:54:25 2004
From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Beth Russell)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 09:54:25 -0500
Subject: [DCRB-L] Main entry for collectors
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20040124160438.00a09210@postoffice.brown.edu>
References: <88539F4A9A5C3041B06A234AA2ABDB58015D9ECD@portia.folger.edu>
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20040126090841.00b5d0c0@pop.service.ohio-state.edu>
--Boundary_(ID_DmhUzoPuTRxLGdiC9SDlgA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
At the risk of sounding shrill and obsessive, I add:
At 05:03 PM 1/24/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>Beth is dead right about the rationale for collector main entry in APPM;
>but collections of published materials, as opposed to archival materials,
>fall into a kind of grey area, largely because there's a tension between
>our notions of main entry for individual published items, or items
>published in some sense collectively, as against main entry for archival
>collections.
To my mind, the point is not that the kinds of collections we would handle
under DCRM(B) are equivalent in substance or nature to archival collections
-- they are not. The point is that APPM is a model that provides
comprehensive guidance for cataloging collections as collections. We could
choose to follow APPM in the cases under discussion not because we are
equating our materials with archives, or because we want to reach out to
archivists, or any such thing. We could chose to direct catalogers to use
collector main entry simply because these guidelines make sense in terms of
collections.
Our notion of main entry for individual published items (in my humble
opinion) make no difference at all. Access may be provided to items in the
collection in any number of ways -- the collection-level record is by
definition not the means to do this. I believe the type of material being
cataloged is simply not relevant. This "materials neutral" perspective is
central to my thinking in this matter.
Any disagreement may be worsened by the fact that we are only beginning to
consider collection-level records for the special collections / rare books
community in the context of book (DCRM(B)) cataloging rules. The decision
of the group in New Haven, articulated in the Introduction and Rationale
section, was that we didn't want to try to replace APPM for archival
materials. I do think it's possible, however, for catalogers acting in good
faith to extend this treatment to collections of (mostly) printed material
that might include non-print formats (A/V, computer files, etc.) In this
case, would we consult individual format cataloging guidelines, or would we
instead be guided by the concept of the collection as collection in all our
cataloging decisions?
I also think Richard's points about local practice are worth consideration.
Catalogers have to come up with some way to make these guidelines work in
our diverse local systems. Certainly there are as many ways to make this
happen as there are local systems, catalogs, and catalogers, and since
collections are by nature unique, we ought to expect this kind of
flexibility in our records.
I must also state, for the record, that I have no strong feelings about the
concept of main entry at all. I simply think that we should follow the
concept as it is currently expressed in cataloging guidelines. It's true
that in this case, I believe equating authorship with collector-ship is a
justifiable expression of main entry, and simply one of many decisions that
go into deciding how to describe and provide access to the entity we are
cataloging.
Beth
----------------------
Beth M. Russell
Head, Special Collections Cataloging
Assistant Professor
The Ohio State University Libraries
1858 Neil Avenue Mall
Columbus OH 43210-1286
614-247-7463
FAX 614-292-2015
russell.363@osu.edu
----------------------
--Boundary_(ID_DmhUzoPuTRxLGdiC9SDlgA)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
At the risk of sounding shrill and obsessive, I add:
At 05:03 PM 1/24/2004 -0500, you wrote:
Beth is dead right about the rationale for
collector main entry in APPM; but collections of published materials, as
opposed to archival materials, fall into a kind of grey area, largely
because there's a tension between our notions of main entry for
individual published items, or items published in some sense
collectively, as against main entry for archival
collections.
To my mind, the point is not that the kinds of collections we would
handle under DCRM(B) are equivalent in substance or nature to archival
collections -- they are not. The point is that APPM is a model that
provides comprehensive guidance for cataloging collections as
collections. We could choose to follow APPM in the cases under
discussion not because we are equating our materials with archives, or
because we want to reach out to archivists, or any such thing. We could
chose to direct catalogers to use collector main entry simply because
these guidelines make sense in terms of collections.
Our notion of main entry for individual published items (in my humble
opinion) make no difference at all. Access may be provided to items in
the collection in any number of ways -- the collection-level record is by
definition not the means to do this. I believe the type of material being
cataloged is simply not relevant. This "materials neutral"
perspective is central to my thinking in this matter.
Any disagreement may be worsened by the fact that we are only beginning
to consider collection-level records for the special collections / rare
books community in the context of book (DCRM(B)) cataloging rules. The
decision of the group in New Haven, articulated in the Introduction and
Rationale section, was that we didn't want to try to replace APPM for
archival materials. I do think it's possible, however, for catalogers
acting in good faith to extend this treatment to collections of (mostly)
printed material that might include non-print formats (A/V, computer
files, etc.) In this case, would we consult individual format cataloging
guidelines, or would we instead be guided by the concept of the
collection as collection in all our cataloging decisions?
I also think Richard's points about local practice are worth
consideration. Catalogers have to come up with some way to make these
guidelines work in our diverse local systems. Certainly there are as many
ways to make this happen as there are local systems, catalogs, and
catalogers, and since collections are by nature unique, we ought to
expect this kind of flexibility in our records.
I must also state, for the record, that I have no strong feelings about
the concept of main entry at all. I simply think that we should follow
the concept as it is currently expressed in cataloging guidelines. It's
true that in this case, I believe equating authorship with collector-ship
is a justifiable expression of main entry, and simply one of many
decisions that go into deciding how to describe and provide access to the
entity we are cataloging.
Beth
----------------------
Beth M. Russell
Head, Special Collections Cataloging
Assistant Professor
The Ohio State University Libraries
1858 Neil Avenue Mall
Columbus OH 43210-1286
614-247-7463
FAX 614-292-2015
russell.363@osu.edu
----------------------
--Boundary_(ID_DmhUzoPuTRxLGdiC9SDlgA)--
From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Mon Jan 26 16:47:06 2004
From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Richard Noble)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:47:06 -0500
Subject: [DCRB-L] Collector main entry
In-Reply-To: <88539F4A9A5C3041B06A234AA2ABDB58015D9EE7@portia.folger.edu
>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040126113139.00a448d0@postoffice.brown.edu>
At 1/24/04 09:35 PM, Deborah Leslie
wrote:
I'm
toying with the idea of considering collections of printed materials
analogous more to monographic series than to archives. The effect would
be to confirm our original proposal, to only give a name main entry
when all items of the "series" are by the same person or
emanate from the same body.
Deborah's analogy between collections of printed materials and series was
just what we had in mind at Brown in establishing local guidelines for
the creation of "collection set records":
"A set is defined in the ALA glossary as 'two or more
documents in any physical form published, issued, or treated as an
entity, and as such forming the basis for a single bibliographic
description'. Such a description is referred to as a 'set record'. If a
set is analyzed, i.e. the component items are cataloged individually, the
set record functions as a kind of umbrella for the individual records.
This treatment has usually been applied to materials published or issued
as sets: monographic series, multipart items, microform sets,
etc.
"By providing each of our 'special' collections with a single
bibliographic description, we are, for cataloging purposes, defining them
as 'sets' on the basis of treatment. Collection set records provide
description and indexing based on attributes that define the
collection--including the circumstances of its collection and information
about the collector(s)--as well as subject analysis at a level of
generality inapplicable to individual items. While they are meant to
serve as an umbrella for item-level records of fully cataloged materials,
they can also function as adjuncts or substitutes for item-level
in-process records of materials in backlogs." --
http://www.brown.edu/Facilities/University_Library/Catalog/setrecords.html
When I was researching other libraries' guidelines for collection
records, McGill seemed to be the only other institution that explicitly
provided for the creation, or more properly the retention of collection
records for such purposes:
"Temporary collection level records ... This type of record
is temporary because the long-term goal is to catalogue each item in the
collection individually. In the meantime, this record indicates the
existence and location of the collection as a whole. After the collection
is completely catalogued, there must be a decision either to drop the
collection level record or to retain it because it still provides useful
access. If the record is retained, it must be edited to include
information about access to the individual items, e.g., NOTES: The
collection has been completely catalogued and the individual titles are
accessible through MUSE." --
http://www.library.mcgill.ca/techserv/cataloguing/collectionlevelrecords.htm
RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-2093 : RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU
From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Mon Jan 26 17:23:14 2004
From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Jane Gillis)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:23:14 -0500
Subject: [DCRB-L] Collector main entry
In-Reply-To: <88539F4A9A5C3041B06A234AA2ABDB58015D9EE7@portia.folger.edu
>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040126112713.02dd3858@jgillis.mail.yale.edu>
--=====================_13205618==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Looking at the iterations of "Collection-Level Cataloging Guidelines" that
followed the March 2003 conference, I find that all of them include
instructions for entering the collection under the name of the
collector. What is the "original proposal"?
I think we are trying to be too logical in our consideration of
collection-level records. If you leaning towards treating a collection of
printed items like a monograph series, look at the definition of "series"
in AACR2:
"Series
1. A group of separate items related to one another by the fact that each
item bears, in addition to its own title proper, a collective title
applying to the group as a whole. The individual items may or may not be
numbered. 2. Each of two or more volumes of essays, lectures, articles, or
other writings, similar in character and issued in sequence (e.g., Lowell's
Among my books, second series). 3. A separately numbered sequence of
volumes within a series or serial (e.g., Notes and queries, 1st series, 2nd
series, etc.)."
Collections of printed items do have some things in common with
series, but not much. One could make a case that many collections have
much more in common with archives than with series. There are rules for
cataloging individual printed items and rules for cataloging
archives. Neither of these sets of rules are adequate for cataloging
collections of printed items. These collections are neither fish nor
fowl. They should be viewed as a third category, one that needs a new set
of guidelines/rules, taking a little from AACR2, a little from APPM, and a
little (a lot?) from LC.
In the current introduction, we say the guidelines are based on the LC
guidelines in the Cataloging Service Bulletin, no. 78, which instructs us
to enter under the name of a collector in certain circumstances. So far, I
have not heard anything that would make me want to disregard/contradict LC.
Jane
At 09:35 PM 1/24/2004 Saturday-0500, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:
>There has been an impressive amount of talented thought and insight so far
>on the discussion about collector main entry, for which I'm glad. I know I
>will spend more time perusing and studying the various messages and
>arguments. In the meantime, I'm toying with the idea of considering
>collections of printed materials analogous more to monographic series than
>to archives. The effect would be to confirm our original proposal, to only
>give a name main entry when all items of the "series" are by the same
>person or emanate from the same body. But like Bob and Larry et al., I
>believe it is preferable to have principled justifications for changed or
>new rules.
>
>
>
>Let me chime in, too, about the importance of the concept of main entry.
>It no longer carries the singular importance it did in the book catalogue
>days, but (I think this was argued by Michael Gorman in an article I read
>way back in library school) there is still a requirement for a "citation
>package." The need for a consistent, reliable, and collocative way to cite
>works has not diminished. And since we are not about to create title or
>name/title authority records for every item we catalogue, our choices for
>main entry should satisfy this requirement.
>
>______________________
>Deborah J. Leslie
>Folger Library
>djleslie@folger.edu
>www.folger.edu
>
>
>
--=====================_13205618==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Looking at the iterations of "Collection-Level
Cataloging Guidelines" that followed the March 2003 conference, I
find that all of them include instructions for entering the collection
under the name of the collector. What is the "original
proposal"?
I think we are trying to be too logical in our consideration of
collection-level records. If you leaning towards treating a
collection of printed items like a monograph series, look at the
definition of "series" in AACR2:
"Series
1. A group of separate items related to one another by the fact that each
item bears, in addition to its own title proper, a collective title
applying to the group as a whole. The individual items may or may not be
numbered. 2. Each of two or more volumes of essays, lectures,
articles, or other writings, similar in character and issued in sequence
(e.g., Lowell’s Among my books, second series). 3. A separately
numbered sequence of volumes within a series or serial (e.g., Notes and
queries, 1st series, 2nd series, etc.)."
Collections of printed items do have some things in common with
series, but not much. One could make a case that many
collections have much more in common with archives than with
series. There are rules for cataloging individual printed items and
rules for cataloging archives. Neither of these sets of rules are
adequate for cataloging collections of printed items. These
collections are neither fish nor fowl. They should be viewed as a
third category, one that needs a new set of guidelines/rules, taking a
little from AACR2, a little from APPM, and a little (a lot?) from
LC.
In the current introduction, we say the guidelines are based on the LC
guidelines in the Cataloging Service Bulletin, no. 78, which instructs us
to enter under the name of a collector in certain circumstances. So
far, I have not heard anything that would make me want to
disregard/contradict LC.
Jane
At 09:35 PM 1/24/2004 Saturday-0500, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:
There
has been an impressive amount of talented thought and insight so far on
the discussion about collector main entry, for which I'm glad. I know I
will spend more time perusing and studying the various messages and
arguments. In the meantime, I'm toying with the idea of considering
collections of printed materials analogous more to monographic series
than to archives. The effect would be to confirm our original proposal,
to only give a name main entry when all items of the
"series" are by the same person or emanate from the same body.
But like Bob and Larry et al., I believe it is preferable to have
principled justifications for changed or new rules.
Let me chime in, too, about the
importance of the concept of main entry. It no longer carries the
singular importance it did in the book catalogue days, but (I think this
was argued by Michael Gorman in an article I read way back in library
school) there is still a requirement for a "citation package."
The need for a consistent, reliable, and collocative way to cite works
has not diminished. And since we are not about to create title or
name/title authority records for every item we catalogue, our choices for
main entry should satisfy this requirement.
______________________
Deborah J. Leslie
Folger Library
djleslie@folger.edu
www.folger.edu
--=====================_13205618==_.ALT--
From dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu Fri Jan 30 15:40:30 2004
From: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu (Robert Maxwell)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 08:40:30 -0700
Subject: [DCRB-L] Mail problems at BYU
Message-ID:
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C3E747.65205E4F
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
BYU quarantined its mail system (because of the virus/worm that's been
going around) the last two or three days so nothing (or very little) got
in or out; if you sent something during that time to dcrb-l and didn't
receive it back, could you please send it again?
=20
Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568=20
=20
------_=_NextPart_001_01C3E747.65205E4F
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message
BYU =
quarantined its=20
mail system (because of the virus/worm that's been going =
around) the last=20
two or three days so nothing (or very little) got in or out; if you sent =
something during that time to dcrb-l and didn't receive it back, could =
you=20
please send it again?
Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient =
Languages=20
Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. =
Lee=20
Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568=20
------_=_NextPart_001_01C3E747.65205E4F--