[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
- Subject: Re: documentation...?
- From: Peter Verheyen <pdverhey@DREAMSCAPE.COM>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 14:30:28 -0500
- In-Reply-To: <199901201916.OAA08796@ultra1.dreamscape.com>
- Message-Id: <199901201930.LAA15880@palimpsest.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: "Book_Arts-L: READ THE FAQ at http://www.dreamscape.com/pdverhey" <BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
MARC cataloging records. These define the structure of or better put are
derived from the old card catalog cards in libraries. It is a standard
designed to describe books, but not neccessarily designed for artists
books though liberal note fields allow you to do a good job.
You can find out more information on the fields and structure at the
Library of Congress site, <http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/>.
While this may not be quite what you are looking for, it could be a start.
To the best of my knowledge there is no agreed upon "standard" for
describing works, at least not based on exhibition catalogs.
Peter Verheyen, Listowner: Book_Arts-L
On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Roberta Lavadour wrote:
> I know this may be a complicated question, but thought I would throw it out
> While there is a standard, formal documentation process for prints, what is
> the protocol for documenting editioned book works? I am familiar with the
> format for a colophon, but what if the work is sculptural, or if adding a
> colophon wouldn't be appropriate for other structural or visual reasons?
> Any thoughts, or any leads on a reference book that addresses this?
> Thanks -