Open jenniferward opened 5 years ago
I would like to re-open this: This would really be useful! The concept is difficult to explain (especially to non-catalogers, and also to some librarians because this is not typical library practice), it is not intuitive what fields need to be repeated in individual entries (we advise minimizing duplication, but in fact a lot is duplicated), and it would save the cataloger's time. Or is it impossible?
My suggestion would be that from the parent record, there is a link "Derive child record" where a child record is derived which carries over: Manuscripts -852$a Siglum -852$c Shelfmark -773 Link to parent record (this would have to be generated) -100$a Composer, if present in collection record -240$o, $k, $r, if present in collection record -650$a, if present -593$a, if present -260$c, if present
Prints -035 Local number (maybe?) -773 Link to parent record (to be generated) -100$a Composer, if present in collection record -240$o, $k, $r, if present in collection record -650$a, if present -593$a -260$c, if present
Other fields?
Updated suggestion based on version 9.3:
From COL create MSR containing:
From EDT create SUB containing:
From TED create TEC containing:
From LED create LEC containing:
I'll leave out handwritten libretto and treatise collections for now, because they are rare and they use the COL template.
Here is something for a far-off wish list: Once you create a parent record, it would be convenient to create an individual entry that is derived from this parent record in which the siglum, shelfmark, and link to parent record (and maybe other elements such as composer/material type/format) are already filled in.