DCRB & MARC Format

[Patrick Russell]

Hi Elizabeth and others:

1. I was aware that my views on 590 would raise some eye brows!   I can
only quote the MARC sheet for 59X which says "In 1982, field 590 was made
obsolete when the entire 59X block of numbers was reserved for local use
and definition."   This is why, in LC MARC Formats, field 500 contains a
number of examples which clearly are copy/institution specific (see
examples illustrating use of $5). 

5. MARC  Holdings: also for multiple copies, multi-volume-monographs.  At
Berkeley, we use the Holdings screen (in our case non-MARC) for recording
copy-specific information.  So I think MARC Holdings needs to be at least
glanced at by someone with experience. 

6. Initial articles in uniform titles: I believe a proposal is being
discussed  by MARBI that would enable the inclusion of an initial article
in a uniform title or $t.  John Attig could help out here.  Yes, initial
articles presently are dropped, but there is some dissent from this
practice, because in certain languages (e.g., German) this creates shall we
say "unfortunate grammar."

6. 740 : There is a beautiful example of a valid 740 in MARC Formats:

	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 0   Uncle Vanya. 

Its obvious my skills at Cyrillic Eudora Email are lacking; but I think we
have all come across the above situation in rare books!

I like Elizabeth's 740 also.

6. Use of $3: This subfield originated in AMC format, and is very
convenient.  Now that it can be used in all formats, it might be used to
help resolve the manner of identifying the particular copy, volume,
whatever, to which a copy-specific note applies.  This problem came up when
I was on Standards Com. before, and to my knowledge was never fully
resolved.  I must admit that I'm not certain my examples reflect LC's
intentions.  But $3 seemed an option worth putting on the table.   There is
also some interest in "copy identification" for the related added entry,
and $3 is authorized in 7XX entries, though I do not find an example given
in MARC Formats under 700, 710, or 711.  When I tried it at Berkeley, a
filing problem resulted!  

Here is an example of $3 which occurs often in collection-level records (in
this case an oral history transcript with tapes and other related material). 

	300 $3Transcript:$a2 v. (500 p.) :$bill. ;$c30 cm.
	300 $3Phonotapes:$a11 sound cassettes.
	300 $3Related material:$a1 carton (1 linear ft.)
	520 $3Related material:$aNotes, photographs, floor plans, and
correspondence used in the 		course of the interviews with so-and-so.
	 
Provenance: why would one want to use a distinct field for the "last or
only known owner" before item reached a repository?  561 does trace
ownership history, but if all the ownership history there is to trace is
the known fact that the item  bears Gertrude Stein's bookplate, then it
appears to me one might record it  in 561.  It seems to me that the basic
issue (at least what I intended to raise) is:  is 561 intended primarily to
record "ownership and custodial history" of archival material (as I happen
to think it is), or, as my examples try to do, should it be used for the
somewhat different "rare book" concept of provenance of individually
cataloged printed items?  My examples of 561 could equally well have been
tagged "500" (per several good examples in LC MARC Formats).  I did not use
590, since I view this as a "locally defined field."  At Berkeley, we have
two such "locally defined fields: "PRV" and "BIB"; I gather that some
libraries put in 590 all of the information which Berkeley currently splits
between PRV and BIB as in the following example:

	PRV Signed on t.p. by Adam Smith, with the bookplate of J. P. Morgan.
	BIB   Bound in blue morocco, gilt.

Thanks for this input. 

Patrick
>
>Some preliminary response to your email below:
>
>1. I was confused about the obsolescence issue of X9X you mentioned, so I
checked the USMARC for Bibs. Sheets are there for 09X, 59X, and 69X. They
all simply say they are locally defined. Anyhow in regards to the main
question you poised about which MARC format to be concerned about, yes, I
think USMARC for Bibs is the way to go and not the specific versions from
the utilities.
>
>2. As regards the consideration of local systems within the cataloging
code, I don't expect us to try to evaluate and accommodate the problems of
all the specific systems, but at the same time, the local systems issue is
not something that can be completely overlooked. 
>	In our transcription topic, we are currently discussing 246 $i vs. 500
and 246 $a. The rules as they stand now allow both (7C4 and App. A, 7C4-5).
I don't think we have to make a choice on one or the other; leave that to
local library practice. If we want to use examples that display a variety
of ways of doing the same thing, that might re-enforce that notion. Just
selections, not all the varied ways.
>
>3. Should examples have tagging? I think that would be quite helpful. I
would also vote to keep the examples at the rules they illustrate. And
continue with _Examples to DCRB_ also.
>
>5. I don't have any experience with the USMARC Holdings either, but I it
would be relevant for rare serials.
>
>6. Initial articles in uniform titles - I wonder what's being discussed.
These are already being dropped.
>
>6. 740 - For unestablished title main entry added entries. E.g.:
>
>	245 00 Stories of love ...
>	500      Includes the anonymous Tale of the heartbroken 		maiden.
>	740 02 Tale of the heartbroken maiden.
>
>6. Use of $3 - Had to look this one up; never used it before. I gather it
is to focus descriptive information to a part of the thing being cataloged.
That could be universal or copy-specific. I did look at examples in the
various 5xx chapters. $5 [NUC code], of course, always indicates
copy-specific info.
>
>The "right" field for provenance - As I recall, when format integration
was first implemented, there was some discussion among catalogers about
whether to use 561 for provenance of books like one uses it with
manuscripts. Many libraries (mines included) use 590 for provenance. And
the difference in the fields, as currently defined in USMARC Bib, is 590
(since local) can be used for the last former owner you have (or whatever
provenance info [generally incomplete] you have) whereas 561 is suppose to
be tracing ownership from creation to current owner. Most of us don't have
that kind of comprehensive data for our books, so we've been sticking with
590.
>
>--Elizabeth A. Robinson
>  Principal Rare Book Cataloger
>  Huntington Library
>  erobinson at huntington.org
>
>
>
>----------
>From: 	Patrick Russell[SMTP:prussell at library.berkeley.edu]
>Sent: 	Monday, January 25, 1999 10:45 AM
>To: 	dcrb-l at lib.byu.edu
>Subject: 	DCRB & MARC Format
>
><<File: 856.wpd>>
>Hi all:
>
>
>I want to summarize 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, so this is more like a feeler.
>
>
><bold>Some general questions:
>
></bold>
>
>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.
>
>
>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.
>
>
>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.
>
>
>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.
>
>
>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? 
>
>
>6) Implications of new fields/subfields in BK format due to format
>integration?
>
>
><bold>To go through some fields:
>
></bold>
>
>008/044: Imprint Places: corrected, fictitious, false ?
>
>008/046: Imprint Dates: corrected, fictitious or false.  This is under
>discussion in MARBI.  
>
>
>240/245/246:	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?
>
>
>246: various uses (cf. DCRB 7C4):
>
>
>	Cover title
>
>	Caption title
>
>	Running title
>
>	Other title variations
>
>
>When to use 500 (and 740) instead of 246?
>
>
>	 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.
>
>
>Note fields: Use of $3; location/copy specific data
>
>
>	How does $3 affect formulating copy-specific or other notes?  I just
>give some examples of what I have in mind
>
>
>	561 $3Copy 1:$aSigned in ms.: Alex. Pope.$5CU-BANC
>
>	561 $3Copy 2:$aBookplate of Henry J. Kaiser.$5CU-BANC
>
>	500 $3Copy 1:$aBound in Batik by Joseph H. Howard.$5CU-BANC
>
>	500 $3Copy 2:$aPrinted on vellum.$5CU-BANC
>
>	500 Library copy imperfect: title page is lacking; supplied in
>facsimile.$5CU-BANC
>
>	
>
>	1) I note that MARC Formats has several examples of what I would call
>"Provenance" notes tagged as 500, 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!
>
>
>	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.  Also,
>published MARC Formats tends to put $3 at beginning of field, as above;
>samples in OCLC documentation tend to put $3 at end.
>
>
>Note fields: Other
>
>
>	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?
>
>
>Digitization:
>
>
>Bearing in mind TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) I just want to raise the
>matter of tagging for digitized versions.  I've attached Bancroft's
>instructions for mss. & pictorials (I think we've used twice for printed
>item/digital version).  Fields of concern are 530 and 856.
>
>
>There are lots of questions about digitized versions.  Basic one I would
>ask is: should a digitized version be cataloged separately (cf. separate
>cataloging for microform version)? I'm inclined to say yes (is it REALLY
>a digitized version of what's represented by the "hard copy" catalog
>record? ) I just want to put URL/Separate record discussion on the table,
>if its not already. 
>
>
><bold>Finally
>
></bold>
>
>What have I missed that is DCRB specific and a problem or new since last
>revision of DCRB vis-a-vis MARC?  I've deliberately (with 2 exceptions)
>avoided 1XX, 6XX, 7XX, or 8XX as being generally outside the scope of
>DCRB. But I do think that in some cases "headings" may need some
>discussion with respect to DCRB, "uniform titles" being an example.
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>Patrick
>
>
>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.
>
>
>