DCRB & MARC Format

[Patrick Russell]

Hi all:

LCRI 31.30J: Yes, good on use of 740.

Chekhov 740: Yes, 2nd indicator should be "2" as this is analytical added
entry.

541: As noted in another email, I believe that this is more appropriate for
so-called "acquisitions" information, much of which is private.  A variety
of fields are possible; but could we not recommend one to facilitate
sharing of data?

Patrick

At 04:04 PM 1/26/99 -0700, Robert L. Maxwell wrote:
>>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
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>