[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