DCRB & MARC Format (Rev.)

Fri Feb 12 10:56:33 MST 1999

Patrick et al.

This is in response to the 856 document only. I suspect that 856s for electronic versions of books or parts of books will be the most common need for 856s. How should we insert this in DCRB? Perhaps in the notes area (for 555 and 530 with companion 856s?) or as an a separate section or appendix?

Also the finding aid 856 may be necessary for any collection-level cataloging of rare books. Is this (collection-level cataloging of rare books [or rare materials in general]) something we want to discuss as regards revising DCRB? Another appendix(ices, if DCRB becomes DCRM)?

--Elizabeth A. Robinson
  Principal Rare Book Cataloger
  Huntington Library
  erobinson at huntington.org

----------
From: 	Patrick Russell[SMTP:prussell at library.berkeley.edu]
Sent: 	Thursday, February 11, 1999 6:04 PM
To: 	dcrb-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: 	DCRB & MARC Format (Rev.)

<<File: 856.wpd>>
<bold>USMARC and DCRB (Rev.  11 Feb  99)

</bold>Hi all:

I want to summarize again some DCRB issues related to MARC as I see them.
 I do not believe we are far enough along in discussion to have touched
on many issues/problems. I have incorporated observations/commments I've
received so far, as well as comments made in Philadelphia.  Major
additions are marked with three stars.

Some general questions:

1) Should we consider MARC as published by LC/MARBI?  As
implemented/supplemented by the various utilities (OCLC, RLIN, WLN,
UTLAS) - I have in mind such points as the various X9X fields found in
OCLC and RLIN, but not in, or obsolete in, published LC MARC Formats.  My
preference is to stick to published MARC, not utilities MARC.

***Replies indicate preference to go with MARC as published, though its
not always clear what MARC as published in fact provides. MARBI
updates/proposals need also to be born in mind. 

2) To what extent should local/LAN/utility implementations be taken into
account?  This seems to me to be beyond the committee's scope of
responsibility.

***Replies indicate that its too early to declare this out of scope.  We
need to take account of shared  problems.

3) Should examples in revised DCRB be tagged (I have in mind the current
practice in LCSH Manual: show fully tagged examples. Cf. Appendix C,
DCRB)?  Use APPM model, placing tagged examples at end?  Place as at
present in supplemental publication?  I think there a benefit in having
the specific examples in DCRB tagged in style of LCSH manual; but I like
also the complete sample records, with accompanying title pages.  The
context (entire record) is important, not just individual parts.

***A new edition of DCRB examples is about to appear.  People like the
idea of having examples "within text"tgged for MARC, particularly serials
revised.  This does present some editing/publishing problems however.  If
examples are to be tagged, its been proposed that these be reviewed by LC
for currency/accuracy. Further discussion needed.

4) I have no cataloging experience in applying DCRB to serials, maps, or
scores. So, any gaps in what follows vis-a-vis these formats need to be
filled in by others with appropriate experience.

***A serials section was distributed for discussion and review in
Philadelphia.

5) I have no experience with MARC Hholdings Format (Bancroft does not
use).  Again, does anyone have such experience? Is it relevant to DCRB
issues? 

***Bob will look at MARC Holdings format for possible areas of relevance
to DCRB.

6) Implications of new fields/subfields in BK format due to format
integration?

<bold>To go through some fields:

</bold>

<bold>008/044:</bold> Imprint Places: corrected, fictitious, false ?

<bold>008/046:</bold> Imprint Dates: corrected, fictitious or false. 
This is under discussion in MARBI.  

<bold>240/245/246:</bold>	There has already been extended discussion of
sort, display, and search problems related to the transcription of
certain letters (i/j, u/v/w, digraphs & ligatures).  Are there other
issues, such as 246 vs. 740 that relate specifically to early books?

	Spelling variations/errors, use of "sic" (filing/sort issue)

	Numerals (e.g., VIII vs. 8 vs. spelled out: some of this covered in
RI's)

	Expanded abbreviations: filing/sort issues?

	245/Title begins with "non-filing" element (e.g., Publii Vergilii
Maronis Opera ...)

	Initial articles in uniform titles (240, 246, 630/730, and/or $t): under
discussion in MARBI

	Other title situations?

<bold>246:</bold> various uses (cf. DCRB 7C4):

	Cover title

	Caption title

	Running title

	Other title variations

<bold>When to use 500 (and/or 740) instead of 246?

</bold>

	 For use of 740 at present see examples of 740's in MARC FORMATS.  Many
"titles" that used to go into 740 (with possibly a 500 justifying note)
now go into 246, but not all.

	***Following example of  740  from MARC Formats; cf. LCRI 31.30J

	100 1  Chekhov, Anton Pavlovich,$d1860-1904.

	240 10 Vishnevyi sad.$lEnglish

	245 14 The cherry orchard ; Uncle Vanya /$cAnton  Chekhov.

	700 12 Chekhov, Anton Pavlovich,$d1860-1904.$tDiadia
Vania.$lEnglish.$f1969

	740 02 Uncle Vanya. 

<bold>Note fields: Use of $3/ $8; location/copy specific data

</bold>

	How does $8 affect formulating copy-specific or other notes?  I just
give some examples of what I have in mind

	561 $8Copy 1:$aSigned in ms.: Alex. Pope.$5CU-BANC

	561 $8Copy 2:$aBookplate of Henry J. Kaiser.$5CU-BANC

	500 $8Copy 1:$aBound in Batik by Joseph H. Howard.$5CU-BANC

	500 $8Copy 2:$aPrinted on vellum.$5CU-BANC

	500 Library copy imperfect: title page is lacking; supplied in
facsimile.$5CU-BANC

	*** "$3" actually means "Materials specified." To meet this
problem/confusion, per John Atig, MARBI has proposed a new subfield,
"$8," for designating specific copy/volume to which a note applies. 
Above examples are revised accordingly.  See below for examples of use of
 "$3."

	1) I note that MARC Formats has several examples of what I would call
<bold>"Provenance" notes tagged as 500</bold>, with the clear implication
that 500 is the preferred field for "Provenance" of printed items.  Most
of the examples under 561 apply to collections of papers & similar
archival collections, and the field definition appears to have archival
materials, and archival meaning of  "provenance" in mind.  However, one
example is a single item, probably a printed book.  This question of the
appropriate field for provenance information needs some
discussion/resolution.  Personally I dislike having to use one field for
printed items to indicate "ownership and custodial history" and another
field for archival materials.  I think also this is confusing to most
people not familiar with the fine points of rare books and archival
theory, let alone MARC tags!

	***One concern expressed expressed was recording "custodial/provenance
history" when it is incomplete. Often a "book's"  complete provenance may
not be known, only its immediate source of acquisition, presence of
bookplate or ownership stamp, whatever.  Is 561 limited to recording only
"complete" history?  Record other provenance, let us say, in 500? 

	2) I know this is not the way these situations are currently handled at
many institutions, certainly not at my place, Bancroft.  I simply want to
raise questions in terms of the present integrated MARC Formats. 

	***3) Field 541 has also been suggested as appropriate for "provenance"
information, since it can give the "immediate source of acquisition." 
However, this field also includes information that might be considered
"acquisitions data" (dealer, auction house, donor, other source, price,
gift/purchase, subscription status, etc.) which many institutions
consider private, do not distribute for legal, privacy, etc. reasons, and
display only to local technical services staff.  

***"<bold>Correct" MARC uses of  "$3":

</bold>

	[This is oral history with tapes, transcript, and other material
cataloged as a collection]

	300 $3Transcript:$a2 v. (500 p.) :$bill. ;$c30 cm.

	300 $3Phonotapes:$a11 sound cassettes.

	300 $3Related material:$a1 carton (1 linear ft.)

	520    So-and-so talks about her career as a professor of law and
amateur photographer.

	520 $3Related material:$aNotes, photographs, floor plans, and

		correspondence used in the course of the interviews with so-and-so.

<bold>Note fields: Other

</bold>

	506/540:	Could we use some examples for Early books?  For instance, at
Bancroft, all incunabula require "Curator's permission" for use, & this
is noted in the catalog record.

	520:		Use for summary 7C15?

	***Response so far have said: use all MARC fields available.  Some of
these "available fields and subfields" were new to several 
responndents.

<bold>Shared Cataloging:

</bold>

***One issue brought out at Philadelphia affecting several points above
concerns copy cataloging and the implications of a "master record" such
as used in OCLC.  I have given below (at end) a fairly straight forward
example of such a master record with one copy/location-specific note
(line 11 of OCLC record) for HRC tagged per MARC 500 and identified as to
instution.  This seems o.k. to me, and I have seen others like it.  Some
institutions (e.g., Bancroft) when creating records in or deriving
records from OCLC use 949, so Master Record does not retain the
location/copy specific data, but only the "version" of the record sent to
the institution using the OCLC record retains such data. There are other
variations on this "theme," such as use of 690, re-formatting, etc.

***Problems:

	1) Even if, as in this example, the location/copy specific data is
identified and tagged as such, this presents in local systems a problem:
local system would need to be programed to delete fields tagged with
inappropriate $5's (unless of course it wanted to have them), or
otherwise review each record for fields "not wanted."

	2) At least in OCLC, there are many records with "obvious"    Audn:        Ctrl:        Lang: 
fre

  BLvl:  m     Form:        Conf:  0     Biog:        MRec:        Ctry: 
ne 

               Cont:        GPub:        Fict:  1     Indx:  0

  Desc:  a     Ills:        Fest:  0     DtSt:  s     Dates: 1779,     
Y

U   1  040     IXA sc IXA Y

U   2  090     PQ2015.N6 F572 1779 Y

U   3  090     sb  Y

U   4  049     CUYM Y

U   5  100 1   Nougaret, P. J. B. sq (Pierre Jean Baptiste), sd
1742-1823. Y

U   6  245 14  Les foiblesses d'une jolie femme, ou Memoires de Madame de 

Vilfranc, / sc aecrits par elle-maeme. Y

U   7  260     A Amsterdam, et se trouve aa Paris, : sb Chez Belin,
libraire 

..., sc 1779. Y

U   8  300     2 v. ; sc 17 cm. (12mo in 8s and 4s) Y

U   9  500     Written by Pierre Jean Baptiste Nougaret. Cf. BN. Also 

attributed to Restif de La Bretonne. Cf. BM. Y

U  10  500     There is another Belin 1779 edition in twelves. Cf. NUC
pre-

1956. Y

U  11  500     HRC t.p. transcription based on pt. 1 only. s5 TxU-Hu Y

U  12  700 2   Restif de La Bretonne, sd 1734-1806. Y

P.s. 856 document is in WordPerfect 6.1, but you should be able to open
in MsWord.  Let me know if you can't open, and I'll paste a copy into an
email for you.