With reference to the draft of LCRI 25.13, both Robert Maxwell and I had
raised the question on this list as to why the instruction was being
made to no longer relate headings for the manuscript and the
manuscript’s contents with see also references. Having read the RI’s
more carefully, I now realize that linking these headings with see also
references has become unnecessary in view of the provisions in LCRI
21.30H on making added entries in the bibliographic record for the name
or repository designation of a manuscript. Using an added entry in the
bib record rather than a see also reference is, I think, a good idea,
although it does raise some database maintenance issues: Should we
remove such see also references from the existing authority records that
have them? Should we go back into existing bib records that do not have
the added entry prescribed by 21.30H, and add it?
On a separate note, in his email on January 5, 2006, Stephen Hearn asked
about qualifiers following name-title headings for liturgical works, and
specifically asked about the presence of “Ms.” in the parenthetical
qualifiers after Catholic Church. $t Psalter. -- I just wanted to
mention that the use of “Ms.” in the parenthetical qualifier for a
variant text of a liturgical work is mandated by rule 25.22B.
Charles R. Croissant
Associate Professor
Senior Catalog Librarian
Pius XII Memorial Library
Saint Louis University
3650 Lindell Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63108-3302
(314) 977-3098
[log in to unmask]
|