<div dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times">Thanks to everyone for their responses, the discussion has been helpful. As you might have guessed, the two examples were derived from the DCRM(C) draft. Here is what I think we're going to do, based on what we've heard so far:<br><br></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times">- Give the Maxted citation in a 500 field (because
the item being cataloged does not appear there). </span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times">Don't submit Maxted for inclusion in SCF, but do c</span>onstruct the citation to match SCF principles (using the SCF format in the general note would not be a requirement, just our own preference).<br><br></span>- Give the Hunter citation in a 510 field (because the item
being cataloged appears there). </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times">Hunter might not provide the most detailed of bibliographic
descriptions (!), but it does contain a </span></span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times">basic "published description" in narrative form that includes author, title, place,
publisher, and date </span></span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times">information</span></span></span>.</span></span>[*]</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"> Don't submit Hunter for inclusion in SCF (not being a bibliography or catalog, it doesn't fit the scope that has been defined for SCF submissions), but do </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times">construct the citation to match SCF principles.</span> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times">A resource doesn't have to be present in SCF to be cited in a 510
field. <br></span></span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"></span></span><br><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times">If the SCF editorial team wants to expand the scope of the SCF beyond bibliographies and catalogs, that's their call. I think it is certainly possible for other types of reference sources and scholarly publications to contain published descriptions of items being cataloged (even ones that rival the most detailed bibliographies and catalogs) and maybe a more refined set of criteria for submissions could be identified. But I can also see how keeping the current scope </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times">might be seen as preferable</span> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times">to them for practical reasons if nothing else (workload concerns!). Maybe something for them to ponder and address in their guidelines at some point in the future.</span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"></span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"> <br></span></span><br></span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times">[*] Why might a 510 citation still be desirable in this situation? My personal take on this: </span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"></span></span>Leading
catalog users to sources that provide an in-depth bibliographic
description is only one reason we might want to make 510 citations. </span></span>Even some bibliographies/catalogs provide only
brief entries - they can be closer to simple checklists. </span></span>Sometimes the important thing is simply the fact that the item being cataloged is *included* in the resource being cited, that it constitutes one of a group of items that satisfies a particular set of
intellectual criteria. For example, in this particular case (Hunter), maybe the history of papermaking is an especially important area of research for your
library, so you decide you want to start collecting all the books
mentioned in Hunter as important "firsts" in the history of papermaking.
If you asked your catalogers to provide those Hunter citations in a standard way in 510
fields, the citations could be more useful than they would be in simple 500 notes, especially if your library has an index devoted to the 510 field. You could use a search of the index to help select items for exhibits, classes, research, purchase, etc. </span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times">Also,</span> although the citation might not lead to a comprehensive physical description (full collation, etc.), it could lead to a more detailed treatment of one particular aspect of the book (here, its paper) or the circumstances surrounding its production (here, details on where and how its paper was produced) and that seems worthwhile to me. <br></span><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Manon<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Manon Theroux <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:manon.theroux@gmail.com" target="_blank">manon.theroux@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi, everyone:<br><br>I could use some clarification on citing resources in the MARC21 510 field. If the resource to be cited is NOT a bibliography or catalog and doesn't contain a bibliographic description of the resource being cataloged, can the 510 field still be used for the citation or should the citation be incorporated into the general note? For example, citing an entry for a printer in a biographical dictionary to justified supplied dates in the 26X or citing an academic monograph to justify an attributed name. DCRM(B) suggests that you can ("or other authoritative reference sources") and points to SCF as a standard, but the SCF scope statement itself is a bit narrower: "bibliographies and catalogs (printed or
electronic) that are useful in verifying, identifying, or describing
items held in rare book or special collections libraries and that have
been or are likely to be cited in bibliographic records, trade catalog
descriptions, and bibliographies." <br><br></div><div>Below are the relevant bits from DCRM(B), SCF, and MARC21.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks!<br></div><div>Manon<br><br>--<br>Manon Théroux<br>Head of Technical Services<br>U.S. Senate Library<br></div><div><br></div><div>===================<br>DCRM(B):<br>7B14. References to published descriptions<br>7B14.1. Give references to published descriptions in bibliographies or other authoritative reference sources if these have been used to supply elements of the description. Use the form and punctuation conventions recommended by Standard Citation Forms for Published Bibliographies and Catalogs Used in Rare Book Cataloging. Begin the note with the word “References” and a colon.<br>References: Evans 24658<br>(Comment: Made in conjunction with a general note reading: “Publication date<br>from Evans”)<br><br>7B14.2. Make other references to published descriptions, if considered important. Such references are especially useful whenever the cited source would serve to distinguish an edition (or variant) from similar editions (or variants), substantiate information provided by the cataloger, or provide a more detailed description of the publication being cataloged.<br>References: Gaskell, P. Baskerville, 17<br>References: ESTC (CD-ROM, 2003 ed.) T60996<br>References: Lindsay & Neu. French political pamphlets, 2194<br>References: BM STC Italian, 1465-1600, p. 368<br>References: Ritter, F. Incun. alsaciens de la Bib. nat. de Strasbourg, 277<br>References: Palau y Dulcet (2. ed.) 19161<br><br>7B14.3. A general note may be made if a description of the publication being cataloged does not appear in a specific bibliographical reference source. Make such a note only if the publication fits the scope for that source and the source purports to be comprehensive for its scope. Preface the general note with the words “Not in” and a colon.<br>Not in: Martin & Walter. Révolution française. Cf. IV:2, 9093<br></div><div><br>-----------------------<br>SCF Working Principles <a href="http://rbms.info/scf/working-principles/" target="_blank">http://rbms.info/scf/working-principles/</a><br><br>Scope: <br><br>This database includes bibliographies and catalogs (printed or
electronic) that are useful in verifying, identifying, or describing
items held in rare book or special collections libraries and that have
been or are likely to be cited in bibliographic records, trade catalog
descriptions, and bibliographies.<br><br>MARC 21 Bibliographic Format, Application:<br><br>Use the citation forms recommended in this list when creating citation/references notes (field 510) in a MARC 21 bibliographic record. These notes are described in Descriptive Cataloging for Rare Materials (Books) 7B14.2 and other DCRM manuals.<br><br>The citation/references note (510) field provides a simple bibliographical citation for a published description of an item and specifies where in the resources that description appears; do not include other information. If necessary, use a general note (field 500) to record additional information provided by the resource cited. Create a citation/references note (510) field for titles which might be useful for retrieval, even in cases where this would involve repetition of information already recorded in a general note:<br><br>General note (500) field:<br><br>500 __ $a Evans calls this the 2nd edition.<br><br>Citation/references note (510) field:<br><br>510 4_ $a Evans, C. American bibliography, $c entry 14023<br><br>-----------------------<br>MARC21, 510 Field <a href="https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd510.html" target="_blank">https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd510.html</a><br><br>Definition and Scope:<br><div>
<p>Citations or references to published bibliographic descriptions, reviews, abstracts, or
indexes of the content of the described item.
</p>
</div>
<p>Used to specify where an item has been cited or reviewed. Citations or references may be
given in a brief form (i.e., using generally recognizable abbreviations, etc.). The
actual text of a published description is not recorded in field 510 but rather in field
520 (Summary, Etc. Note).
</p>
<p>For <b>books</b> and <b>music</b>, this field contains references to
published descriptions of the item (e.g., descriptions of rare materials recorded in a
brief, standardized format) or reviews (e.g., reviews in professional literature).
</p>
<p>For <b>continuing resources</b>, this field is used to specify publications in
which a continuing resource has been indexed and/or abstracted and the dates of
coverage, if known. The indexing and abstracting services referenced are primarily those
issued as continuing resources. Certain monographic titles, particularly those that are
standard reference tools in a subject area or that cover periods of time not included in
continuing publications, may also be given in this field.
</p>
<p>For unpublished <b>visual materials</b> or graphic items collectively
controlled, this field contains references to published descriptions of the work or
collection. Citations to reviews of projected <b>visual materials</b> are also
recorded in this field.
</p>
<p>For <b>mixed materials</b>, this field contains references to publications in
which abstracts, citations, descriptions, or indexes of the described materials have
appeared.
</p>
<p><br></p></div><div><br></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>