Origin of page
http://bard.folger.edu/cgi-bin/view.pl/Main/CentralLibrary/HybridCataloging --Deborah J. Leslie 17:36, 18 March 2014 (EDT)
--Deborah J. Leslie 12:55, 19 March 2014 (EDT)
Cataloger notes and queries
Moved from original Bard page
- Add an example of a non-interleaved mss item
- For Sammelbands, adding the shelfmark of the other work is overkill, since the note will indicate the location within the volume, and the shelfmarks will differ only by a decimal point or "item x". Plus, if we do not require it here, the contents of such notes will be consistent with printed book bound-withs. ***AEB: Totally right, shelfmark here would be overkill I think I was thinking in terms of STC and Wing numbers for items that have MSS shelfmarks. So reword to: "and STC or Wing numbers if appropriate"?
- Make a host item added entry (773) for the work in the other aspect if the relationship is unequal (e.g., single item being cataloged is tipped into a volume containing a larger work). Include ǂ5 DFo if the work you are cataloging is published. DJL: This is problematic for published material; ǂ5 is not defined for field 773 and is not intended to be used for copy-specific added entries. Since the shelfmarks will be different, can we dispense with the 773, relying on the note and distinct shelfmarks? or use a regular associated work added entry? ***EB: Uh oh. I must have missed something. We used 773 to indicate where extra-illustrations can be found, in the Garrick project, see for example http://shakespeare.folger.edu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?BBID=127083. Didn't the Morgan find a way to create hot-links between extra-illustrations and the books they're in?
Reciprocal access points
"Make reciprocal related work added entries in 700 ǂa / ǂt or 730 fields, identified as Folger-specific relations by use of "ǂ5 DFo" on cataloging records for published works." (Comment from Bard page) I don't think this is necessary, since the wording in the note and the call number will both collocate hybrid works. Let's discuss when it comes up again. --Deborah J. Leslie 14:28, 19 March 2014 (EDT)