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

Thanks re. use of the title field in archival cataloging



We seem to have talked this one through, so I wanted now to thank everyone
who replied to my posting about the form and coding of the 245 field in
archival cataloging. I asked about this because at my institution, we have
been enhancing some old catalog records, among other things retrospectively
altering generic titles to make them more descriptive.  I thought it might
make sense to code for title added entry so that the more descriptive title
fields could be searched (I search on the title field in archival catalog
records quite often, or at least search on proper names in the title field
in order to retrieve the records I want in one step). Even though many
systems automatically make the title field searchable, I wanted to do "the
right thing" by making it possible for folks to search on key words in the
title or to do a left-match title search whether their system automatically
indexed titles with the first indicator set at 0 or not. The LC Rule
Interpretation (chap. 21.30J, the introduction) that directs the cataloger
to set the indicator at 0 for a supplied title was, I thought, created by
book catalogers, who do not devise titles all that often. And, OK, I admit
it, there's a side of me that sometimes likes to flaunt cataloging rules
that seem purely book oriented!  :-)

I was curious about what you all were doing, and in fact, the replies did
vary. Most of the respondents do follow the RI and code the 1st 245
indicator to 0 for supplied titles of archival collections, series, etc.
(when there's a personal or corporate main entry, of course). The indicator
would be set to 1 only in cases in which a formal title is transcribed into
the title field. Some catalogers, however, code for title added entry, as I
was at first inclined to do. But it does seem that since most systems (not
just some, as I had thought) do automatically provide for title searching,
so I think I'll stick with setting the 1st indicator to 0. If this direction
not to create a title added entry is really a holdover from the card era and
 most systems ignore it, then I don't mind going along with the practice.(Of
course, now I'm wondering about the 246 field -- does it make sense for us
to create title added entries for generic titles, like "Papers, 1924-1973"?)
Certainly we want to cover all the bases for our users -- but not beyond the
extent that they need us to do so, and not in a way that clutters the
catalog. I enjoyed this discussion (we don't turn to cataloging issues on
this list too often).  Again, many thanks, everyone.

Marsha Maguire
Manuscripts and Special Collections Cataloging Librarian
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, Washington  98195-2900
(206) 543-8407
(206) 685-8782 fax
mmaguire@u.washington.edu

A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List!

To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to listserv@listserv.muohio.edu
      In body of message:  SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
                    *or*:  UNSUB ARCHIVES
To post a message, send e-mail to archives@listserv.muohio.edu

Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html

Problems?  Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <rschmidt@lib.muohio.edu>