Monday, December 5, 2011

Re: Editing record for additional copies of popular fiction titles

Posting to Autocat

On 04/12/2011 21:55, Valerie Borthistle wrote:
<snip>
I have recently begun cataloguing fiction in a public library setting. I am learning that, for popular fiction titles, when added copies are purchased, it is desireable to have all copies of the same format on one bibliographic record to facilitate the holds process. In my previous work at an academic library, we followed standards to create a new bibliographic record if there is a different publisher and date of publication, different ISBN, pagination, etc.
</snip>
I cannot restrain myself from giving a historical note:
Examples from older practices can be seen in Princeton's scanned catalog where you often find an added entry card, and there would sometimes be the note "For other editions, see main card" and the "main card" was not a single main card but a number of cards.

Here for instance, is a facsimile of Cornwallis' "Discourses upon Seneca", where we see the "other editions" note. But, when we look for the main card we see that there are three versions cataloged separately: a microfilm of a 1601 edition, an original from 1631, and the actual "main card" of the facsimile. In this case, there are three different editions, in three different locations, with three different call numbers.

So, we see in some cases, this practice was aimed to limit the growth of the catalog by cutting down on the number of added entry cards, while the catalog itself still provides the same amount of descriptive information. In older book catalogs, practices were even more varied.

No comments:

Post a Comment