<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Dear all,</p>
<p>We are in the process of changing our library management system
at Cambridge and are taking the opportunity to update our local
cataloguing guidelines. One point at issue is which MARC field to
use for copy-specific information other than binding or named
provenance, which clearly go in 563 and 561 respectively. The sort
of thing I mean is descriptions of annotations, hand-applied
decorations such as illumination or rubrication, or imperfections.
Here are a few examples from our recent recataloguing of
incunabula:</p>
<p>(1) Marginal manuscript nota signs and notes in cursive hands,
and additional prayers on verso of upper free endpaper.</p>
<p>(2) Initials in blue with penwork decoration in red and blue on
leaves A1r and e1 recto.</p>
<p>(3) Conjoint leaves [b1] and [b8] misbound after [b2] and [b6]
respectively.</p>
<p>(4) Old shelfmarks: C-1-5; AB-1-3.</p>
<p>(5) Bound with: Paulus Venetus. Expositio in Aristotelem De
generatione et corruptione et De mundi compositione. Venice :
Bonetus Locatellus, for Octavianus Scotus, 21 May 1498 -
Gaietanus de Thienis. Expositio in Aristotelem De anima, De sensu
agente, De sensibilibus communibus et de intellectu. Venice :
Bonetus Locatellus, for Octavianus Scotus, 23 December 1493.</p>
<p>At various points in my career I would have treated 1, 2 & 4
as provenance information and put them in 561 notes, or as general
copy specific information and put them in 59x or 852 $z, depending
on local practice, system requirements, my mood at the time, etc.,
etc. 3 and 5 I would always put in 59X or 852 $z. It has been
suggested that field 562, "Copy and Version Identification Note" a
field I was barely aware of and have never used, might be an
alternative for this kind of information. (See
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd562.html">http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd562.html</a> if you are as
ignorant of this field as I was). However, although the examples
do seem to include notes similar to those above it seems to me
that this field's purpose is different (differentiation between
copies rather than the history of individual copies). I would be
grateful to hear of other libraries' practice in this area.</p>
<p>I suggest you reply to me off-list, and I will summarise for the
list if people are interested.</p>
<p>Many thanks,</p>
<p>Will Hale.<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<span style="color:#0b6cda">William Hale.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/deptserv/rarebooks/index.html">
Rare Books Department,<br>
Cambridge University Library,<br>
West Road, Cambridge, CB3 9DR.</a><br>
<br>
Telephone: (+44) (0)1223 333122<br>
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:William.Hale@lib.cam.ac.uk">William.Hale@lib.cam.ac.uk</a><br>
<br>
<strong><a href="http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/600">1416-2016:
Celebrating 600 Years of Cambridge University Library</a></strong>
</span></div>
</body>
</html>