<div dir="ltr">Hi Francis, Thank you for your reply. The 881 field had somehow escaped my notice until now. Looking at it, it would seem that the various 881 subfields accomplish what I was envisioning in 246 and 490 $s, in which case I see less need for those new subfields. I will take that into account as I revise the comments before submitting them to the MAC liaison.<div><br><div>Matthew</div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 8:52 AM Lapka, Francis <<a href="mailto:francis.lapka@yale.edu">francis.lapka@yale.edu</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">
<div class="gmail-m_7519773218308483397WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt">Matthew,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt">Thanks for sharing this. You nicely articulate the use cases in which a rare materials description might be motivated to employ unparsed transcribed statements “in the order and form presented on the manifestation.”
My sense is that the examples you give would be within scope of MARC field <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.loc.gov_marc_bibliographic_bd881.html&d=DwMFAw&c=009klHSCxuh5AI1vNQzSO0KGjl4nbi2Q0M1QLJX9BeE&r=bqvMzn5svMdVdLTynbtuuiSmNU5dU2X2C8ih_Su0ZW4&m=mfdhP0PKuhx1qsqSwrtVLHFT4eT0bI0o0_7aAAzpUeVo3vEahde2CRc3F8slGdOB&s=bexkV5TM_8kdg6_hOe_7497Ug4f62ztEg1_JRB53SUY&e=" target="_blank">
881: Manifestation Statements</a>, where the cataloger could apply any of the three transcription options outlined by RDA in
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__access.rdatoolkit.org_en-2DUS-5Fala-2D6f241594-2D3b46-2D3eb3-2Da053-2D1ecec038fa34&d=DwMFAw&c=009klHSCxuh5AI1vNQzSO0KGjl4nbi2Q0M1QLJX9BeE&r=bqvMzn5svMdVdLTynbtuuiSmNU5dU2X2C8ih_Su0ZW4&m=mfdhP0PKuhx1qsqSwrtVLHFT4eT0bI0o0_7aAAzpUeVo3vEahde2CRc3F8slGdOB&s=yRYzO2j1o07DRyIFe0Ow99aR2qMPwFh2E0LrKsBzkzw&e=" target="_blank">
Manifestation statements</a> (i.e., the peculiar “basic” transcription, normalized transcription, or any other guidelines, such as DCRM). Have I misunderstood what’s allowed in the 881 field?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt">I very much agree with your statement: “If ISBD parsing is still expected within a single subfield $s, then I don't see as much benefit to the new subfield over current practice of separate subfields that
more or less duplicate the ISBD parsing.” The proposal says its aim is to provide a “less complex and simpler alternative,” but it fails on this count if it still requires ISBD parsing.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt">Francis<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> DCRM-L <<a href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu" target="_blank">dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</a>> <b>On Behalf Of
</b>Matthew C. Haugen<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, June 6, 2022 12:12 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> DCRM Users' Group <<a href="mailto:dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu" target="_blank">dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [DCRM-L] MARC discussion papers 2022-DP10 and 11<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello all,<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I had written up some comments about two other MARC discussion papers, DP10 and DP11, that I was planning to share by way of the PCC Liaison to MAC. But after seeing Francis's email on DP09, and considering that what I had to say is fairly
specific to rare materials, I thought this might be better routed through the RBMS liaison to MAC, after discussion on this list.<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">2022-DP10: <span style="color:black">Defining a New Subfield in Field 264 to Record an </span>Unparsed Statement in the MARC 21 Bibliographic
Format</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Furldefense.proofpoint.com-252Fv2-252Furl-253Fu-253Dhttps-2D3A-5F-5Fwww.loc.gov-5Fmarc-5Fmac-5F2022-5F2022-2D2Ddp10.html-2526d-253DDwMFAg-2526c-253D009klHSCxuh5AI1vNQzSO0KGjl4nbi2Q0M1QLJX9BeE-2526r-253DRaFA-2Dtx7jBggrhCJmvxdLx1AqWgsxw3woyGE8oCNf-2Do-2526m-253DnaOybYCo8W8jYWeAzEDwQzfN-2DlG96S-5FZMku-5FTfvIfH9Xg6FkHh8mmkW-5F6V1OOrMi-2526s-253DB-2DvXbrpZ9m2M-2DYAnmYZ-2D7wZLFmHhMxLWW21WAGJvUYI-2526e-253D-26data-3D05-257C01-257Cfrancis.lapka-2540yale.edu-257C7947b003d5f14bb2c8ff08da47d75310-257Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c-257C0-257C0-257C637901287386357318-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C3000-257C-257C-257C-26sdata-3DOJIo1SqEx3fXtxYLSljc6IOgGF7X5q8J2Q9KfbbMnSo-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFAw&c=009klHSCxuh5AI1vNQzSO0KGjl4nbi2Q0M1QLJX9BeE&r=bqvMzn5svMdVdLTynbtuuiSmNU5dU2X2C8ih_Su0ZW4&m=mfdhP0PKuhx1qsqSwrtVLHFT4eT0bI0o0_7aAAzpUeVo3vEahde2CRc3F8slGdOB&s=Pnk-ximvwPqJbmhu3HKDZokpNFfr7lHvS6x_euyxxqU&e=" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2022/2022-dp10.html</span></a><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">I would support the addition of a new subfield 246 $s to contain an unparsed PPDM or "provision" statement. This would appear to be
well-suited to accommodate various RDA manifestation statement elements: m</span>anifestation production statement, manifestation publication statement, manifestation distribution statement, and manifestation manufacture statement. Per RDA, manifestation PPDM
statements <span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">could include <span style="color:rgb(43,43,43)">any or all of place, date, or name of the providing agent, instead of or in addition to the separate elements for those data. </span></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Especially in a rare materials context, fuller transcription of imprint statements from manifestations plays an important role in both
representation and differentiation between similar manifestations. In many cases, statements on manuscript or early printed texts, maps, scores, graphics, etc. may vary widely from modern Western conventions of title page-like presentation of data on the manifestation.
Statement data may be spread out across different sources on the manifestation, they may be grammatically inseparable from data belonging in other elements, or presented in an order and style that doesn't correspond to ISBD order or punctuation. Depending
on the standard being applied, the cataloger may need to transpose data, omit linking words or addresses, and/or interpolate punctuation and bracketed data in the 260/264 field, in ways that increasingly distort what is actually found on the manifestation,
to assemble a "complete" statement in the 264 field. Then, DCRM instructions may also require separate notes to explain these transpositions or interpolations. After all that, display and discovery layers are increasingly no longer presenting the data in the
ISBD syntax and order we went through so much work to formulate in the first place.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">So, the ability to record the statement(s) instead (or also) in the order and form presented on the manifestation could lessen the need
for catalogers to parse the data at the expense of representational transcription.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Whether the 264 field data is recorded in parsed or unparsed form (or both), I agree with the DP that it is often valuable to supplement
the transcribed statements with controlled forms of places, agent names, and dates in 7XX, 008, etc., to support more consistent searching, compensating for the wide variation in whether or how the provision data may be presented on manifestations.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">All of the examples provided in the DP show statements in 264 $s that are still "parsed" by ISBD syntax/punctuation and supplied data
("[place of publication not identified]" etc.) for "incomplete" statements. If ISBD parsing is still expected within a single subfield $s, then I don't see as much benefit to the new subfield over current practice of separate subfields that more or less duplicate
the ISBD parsing. Rather, I would consider the new $s more useful for statements as transcribed, without being reconfigured into ISBD syntax/order or interpolated with supplied data. For example:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">$s Emprynted the yere of oure Lorde a. MCCCCC & xiij by Richard Pynson, prynter vnto the kyng[es] noble grace.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">$s Verlegt zu Jena von Joh. Jacob Ehrdten und Gedruckt zu Mühlhausen von Tobias David Brücknern, anno 1698 </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">$s Printed in the year MDCCI</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Additionally, when a statement is not parsed, it may not be possible or practical to select a single appropriate value from the existing
second indicator values. This may happen when the type of provision is ambiguous, or when the statement represents multiple provision types (either explicitly, as with "Printed and sold by" or implicitly, as early European printers often functioned also as
publishers). Or, this may be the case when no attempt was made to determine or code the type of provision (e.g. when the cataloger is not fluent in the language, if the data is generated by an automated process or converted from a card), or other reasons.
To account for such cases, I would suggest either or both of these options:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">The definition of 260 $s (as suggested in question 6.5) for unparsed statements when it is not possible or desirable to
associate a single provision type with the statement.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">and/or</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">The definition of new 264 second indicator value(s) to indicate cases when the provision type or function is unknown or mixed/multiple,
such as:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black"># - No information provided</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">and/or</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">5 - Mixed function or Multiple functions</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">Lastly, with 264_4, I wonder if it could be appropriate for $s to contain transcribed copyright statements beyond dates,
corresponding roughly to RDA element: manifestation copyright statement, e.g.:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">264_4 $c ©1866 $s </span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year
1866 in the clerk's office of the Dist. Court of the U.S., for the Southern District of New York</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Though I think that might require a corresponding RDA revision proposal as the <span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">manifestation copyright statement</span> element
seems more restricted to dates. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Discussion Paper No. 2022-DP11: Defining a New Subfield in Field 490 to<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Record an Unparsed Statement in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Furldefense.proofpoint.com-252Fv2-252Furl-253Fu-253Dhttps-2D3A-5F-5Fwww.loc.gov-5Fmarc-5Fmac-5F2022-5F2022-2D2Ddp11.html-2526d-253DDwMFAg-2526c-253D009klHSCxuh5AI1vNQzSO0KGjl4nbi2Q0M1QLJX9BeE-2526r-253DRaFA-2Dtx7jBggrhCJmvxdLx1AqWgsxw3woyGE8oCNf-2Do-2526m-253DnaOybYCo8W8jYWeAzEDwQzfN-2DlG96S-5FZMku-5FTfvIfH9Xg6FkHh8mmkW-5F6V1OOrMi-2526s-253Dm8okvDBcaxC-5FHNrWHobc5TY9drp9O7yl-2DKtx9ZL34Ek-2526e-253D-26data-3D05-257C01-257Cfrancis.lapka-2540yale.edu-257C7947b003d5f14bb2c8ff08da47d75310-257Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c-257C0-257C0-257C637901287386357318-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C3000-257C-257C-257C-26sdata-3D9sUZVxwXPVbx4l1FTGgcQYnxXiPrCX6kF2prRgL-252FA1o-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFAw&c=009klHSCxuh5AI1vNQzSO0KGjl4nbi2Q0M1QLJX9BeE&r=bqvMzn5svMdVdLTynbtuuiSmNU5dU2X2C8ih_Su0ZW4&m=mfdhP0PKuhx1qsqSwrtVLHFT4eT0bI0o0_7aAAzpUeVo3vEahde2CRc3F8slGdOB&s=LJDLIUGrXXNselSIfHi-qApBT_jukRG8Qb36T5a5ajw&e=" target="_blank">https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2022/2022-dp11.html</a><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As with 2022-DP10, I would support the definition of 490 $s, which could correspond to the RDA element: manifestation series statement, and consider it more useful for transcribed
series statements that may not have been manipulated into ISBD syntax. For example:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">490_0 $s Tract no. I of the American Peace Society<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">490 _0 $s No. XII, Modern standard drama, edited by Epes Sargent<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A more general comment, getting beyond the scope of these two discussion papers, but for the reasons described above, I can see a case for defining similar subfields for other unparsed
manifestation statements in the MARC Bibliographic Format:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A new subfield in 245 for unparsed Title/SOR statements, corresponding to RDA element: manifestation title and statement of responsibility statement (though 245 $s is already defined
for version so another subfield code would need to be used)<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">250 $s for unparsed edition statements corresponding to RDA element: manifestation edition statement. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">An entirely new field for unparsed manifestation statements, corresponding to RDA element: manifestation statement, for statements that cannot be more specifically typed or combines
title, edition, series, PPDMC, etc., into a single statement, possibly in combination with other source data that doesn't fall into any of the "types" (such as prices, pious invocations, privilege statements, limitation statements, etc.), that we might otherwise
omit or give as quoted notes in the 500 field. If 264_4 $s as proposed above is not appropriate for copyright statements, those could go in this field instead.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I'll be curious to hear what others think before I send this on to our liaison.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Matthew<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Matthew C. Haugen<br>
Rare Book Cataloger | Columbia University Libraries<br>
<a href="mailto:matthew.haugen@columbia.edu" target="_blank">matthew.haugen@columbia.edu</a> | 212-851-2451 | <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Funiversitylife.columbia.edu-252Fpronouns-26data-3D05-257C01-257Cfrancis.lapka-2540yale.edu-257C7947b003d5f14bb2c8ff08da47d75310-257Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c-257C0-257C0-257C637901287386357318-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C3000-257C-257C-257C-26sdata-3Dh0pEuVTjUYMK-252BlAlS51v-252BdDnvwd7WSuSTyQOTP0tB1M-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFAw&c=009klHSCxuh5AI1vNQzSO0KGjl4nbi2Q0M1QLJX9BeE&r=bqvMzn5svMdVdLTynbtuuiSmNU5dU2X2C8ih_Su0ZW4&m=mfdhP0PKuhx1qsqSwrtVLHFT4eT0bI0o0_7aAAzpUeVo3vEahde2CRc3F8slGdOB&s=EUWZi2KzFa2sG3xLrTcqhN_YG2yoqYYWWzdVND_EQGM&e=" target="_blank">he/him
or they/them</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Matthew C. Haugen<br>Rare Book Cataloger | Columbia University Libraries<br><a href="mailto:matthew.haugen@columbia.edu" target="_blank">matthew.haugen@columbia.edu</a> | 212-851-2451 | <a href="https://universitylife.columbia.edu/pronouns" target="_blank">he/him or they/them</a></div></div>