[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> Ref. your request for feedback on AngloAmerican Cataloging Rules II, I have heard it is because for books, the emphasis is almost entirely on "what is the related subject?"  For museum objects, we want to know what it is (what form does it take?) and what is the related subject and what is the constituent material, and who made it and who else has this object
> been associated with?The main question, for you, is how will people
> ask to see the objects and records?
>
I would point out that AACRII is widely used to catalog materials other
than books.  Manuscripts are often cataloged using AACRII, usually as
the rules are interpreted through Steven L. Hensen's Archives, personal
papers, and manuscripts : a cataloging manual for archival repositories,
historical societies, and manuscript libraries, 2nd ed. (Chicago :
Society of American Archivists, 1989).  I have seen many print and
photograph collections cataloged using AACRII as well.  Cataloging these
materials presents many of the same issues of provenance and form as
artifacts.  In fact, there are thesauri for subject and form terms for
specialized material, such as Elisabeth Betz Parker, LC thesaurus for
graphic materials : topical terms for subject access (Washington, D.C. :
Cataloging Distribution Service, Library of Congress, 1987).

My guess is that librarians adapted AACRII for library collections of
manuscripts and photographs so that cataloging would be standardized.
Such standardization has yet to happen in museums.

Gregg Kimball