DCRB & MARC Format

[Robert L. Maxwell]

>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!

LCRI 31.30J, p. 7, covers this: 740 is now limited solely to "added entry
access for the uncontrolled form of two kinds of titles:
	a) uncontrolled analytical added entries for titles of independent works
contained within the item [Patrick's example above, although I would think
the indicators should be 02, no?]
	b) uncontrolled added entries for titles of related works external to the
item [LC notes that it will not use case b, instead using a 700-730
controlled form]."

	I think the LCRI makes it pretty clear what to do in nearly every
situation, so there probably isn't much room here for local differences in
practice (at least not in DCRM).

>
>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. 

There are in fact two different 5XX fields for provenance, 541 and 561. 541
notes the immediate source of acquisition (e.g., the dealer from whom the
library bought the item); 561 is more general. I don't see why either or
both could not be used in monograph records.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Cataloger
6428 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801) 378-5568
robert_maxwell at byu.edu
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=