[Table of Contents] [Search]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Artists' books in the library (fwd)

would any tech-service librarians out there care to share with us the
exact form that a proper (notated) MARC record should take?  with
the proper names of the various fields etc...  sort of a "fill in
the blank" set of data that would make a prospective cataloger's job
as easy as possible, and increase our chances of getting properly

burning press

>various wrote:
>> As a printer of such works I provide all the detailed notes any cataloger
>> could need.  The problem is that many libraries have cut out such cataloging
>> as too costly.  I understand the cost involved, but in the case of artists'
>> books the notes explain everything and are of great importance to
>> researchers using on line electronic catalogs for searching for unique works.
>Would a "collection level" type of cataloging be helpful? For example, if
>a library were unable fiscally to fully catalog (with extensive notes)
>individual items in an artists' books collection, but could create a
>record stating the library does have a collection of artists books, would
>that be useful? That wouldn't provide the item access you get with the
>author/title/etc cataloging...
>The point that someone made about supplying the information to the
>library is really significant in terms of whether a fully developed
>record can be created. It is the intellectual part of cataloging that is
>complex, time-consuming, and expensive; the data entry is not.
>A nice sheet with biographical information
>about the artist, other works (with dates of creation and where they are
>located) and any content/material (elephant dung?) information would be

[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents] [Search]