I make it 6 copies of the 1891 edition - Harvard x 2, Michigan x 3, New
York PL x 1 (found by searching intitle:"rules for a dictionary
catalogue" then using the 'More editions' link
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Bernhard Eversberg
Sent: 06 September 2007 09:30
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Cutter's Rules - Google does FRBRization
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
> So many digitized editions, no collocation at all, not even
> within Google. (If you happen on one edition, it doesn't point you to
> any others.)
One should acknowledge that G.B. does collocate four copies (of
apparently the same edition), and not only that, it also
lists a few related works and references. But did they really,
intentionally digitize four copies (Harvard, twice Michigan, NYPL)?
There is no pointer to the 1891 (or any other) edition which you find
further down the list when searching for cutter catalog rules
When searching explicitly for
cutter "rules for a dictionary catalog"
only the 1904 edition (4 copies) is brought up on top, other
editions by the very same title don't appear on that 640 item list.
You add the year 1891 and get a list of 93 entries, the
1891 edition appears only on the second page. The exact title,
IOW, apparently doesn't figure in the ranking.
B.Eversberg
Received on Thu Sep 06 2007 - 03:40:32 EDT