On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Jim Greve wrote:
> A question has arisen in our Description Section at The Library
> of Virginia concerning periodic subdivisions in the 650 field.
...
> Secondly, adding the subdivision "-History" implies a narrative
> or analysis or treatment of the subject in question. Like a
> book on cotton farming in the 19th century. The material being
> described is orginal manuscript material from cotton
> plantations. It's the material itself. ...

Many archival catalogers have a problem with the advice given in the
_Subject Cataloging Manual_ regarding use of both "History" and
"History--Sources" for precisely the reasons you describe. The Manual was
written almost entirely with published works in mind, and the nuances are
very, very different for original source materials such as manuscripts.

Lots of archival repositories omit form-based final subdivisions
("--Pictorial works" is another good example) from their subject headings
across the board, because their use is both impractical and often
inaccurate in collection-level cataloging.

What's legal? Who's right? When the prevailing content standard (the
Manual) doesn't adequately take into account the nature of the material
you're cataloging, I think it's entirely appropriate to interpret it in a
way that you feel is well-considered and sound. Purists will disagree.

  Jackie M. Dooley, Head of Special Collections and University Archives
UCI Libraries, P.O. Box 19557, Univ. of California, Irvine, CA 92623-9557
   Internet: [log in to unmask] Phone: 714/824-4935 Fax: 714/824-2472