[DCRM-L] Comments please: Subfield $5

Tue Jan 9 10:10:30 MST 2007

To take up the issue of identifying copy-specific information in notes
in Katy's query, most institutions do use 590. It should be kept in
mind, however, that field 590 is not defined in MARC21; the block 59X is
left undefined for local use. Instead of trying to insist that libraries
all use a particular local convention, we should instead try to
encourage systems to treat note and heading fields ending in $5 in a
more helpful way (including not transferring them when copying records.)

DCRM(B) 7B19.1.1 says "Carefully distinguish local notes from other
kinds of notes that record information valid for all copies of the
bibliographic unit being cataloged." Although one can argue that putting
a note in a 590 field instead of a 500 field is sufficient, many of us
can attest to the problem of these unprefaced local notes migrating in
copy cataloging or recon records and causing all kinds of confusion. It
is best to preface a local or copy-specific note with the library's
name. Even using something like "Library's copy" fails to offer
sufficient identification. 

______________________________________________________
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
Chair, RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee
Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare Library
201 East Capitol St., S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003
djleslie at folger.edu  |  202.675-0369  |  http://www.folger.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Barry E. Hinman
Sent: Tuesday, 09 January, 2007 11:46
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Comments please: Subfield $5

I would like to expand on this to answer the first question asked by the

lady yesterday [the former student of Deborah's], which was, as I 
recollect, what is the difference between the 500 and 590.  As Deborah 
says below, I would restrict the use of the 500 to elements in common 
and make all notes about a specific copy in a 590 local note.  There are

libraries, specifically the Library of Congress, which make 500 notes 
with $5 at the end.  I, and our patrons, find these confusing, and since

for the notes there is a specific field for just that kind of 
information, I would propose that best practice would be to use 500 
without the $5.

I hesitated to reply yesterday, as far less experienced in real rare 
book cataloguing than most on this list, but since no one else has 
replied, and this seemed a good handle ...

Deborah J. Leslie wrote:
> I believe it is to our advantage as keepers of rare materials to
resist
> any muddying of $5. 
>
> Just as we are careful to separate what is common to the issue and
what
> is specific to the copy in description, we should retain the meaning
of
> $5 as specific to the copy. Given that, I'd prefer that $5 not even be
> used for headings that are of interest to a particular institution, if
> the headings apply to common elements. 
>
> I'm with Richard: recommend that $2 be expanded to include MARC21
> organizational code to indicate source of heading. The advantage to
this
> kind of expansion of $2 for us is that institutions may use it to
denote
> headings of local interest that refer to common elements, and keep the
> $5 for local headings only. 
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
> Chair, RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee
> Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare Library
> 201 East Capitol St., S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003
> djleslie at folger.edu  |  202.675-0369  |  http://www.folger.edu
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu]
On
> Behalf Of Richard Noble
> Sent: Tuesday, 09 January, 2007 10:33
> To: DCRM Revision Group List
> Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] Comments please: Subfield $5
>
>
> At 1/8/2007    11:17 PM, Bob Maxwell wrote:
>   
>> Weighing in on question 2-3, I don't like the idea of using subfield 
>> 5 to mean something else than "local" and I think the proposal is 
>> something different. I think the concepts should be kept separate. 
>> (I'm not sure I understand why the Germans want this by the way, 
>> though if they do want to be able to do this, I think that's 
>> fine--but any clue as to their thinking, John? Why stop at subject 
>> headings? Why not be able to mark every part of the record you added 
>> so you would know exactly who did which iota of the record?)
>>     
>
> As the examples clipped from Bob's message indicate, he uses $5 
> according to its definition in MARC21 app. A:
>
> "Subfield $5 contains the MARC code of the institution or 
> organization that holds the copy to which the data in the field 
> applies. Data in the field may not apply to the universal description 
> of the item or may apply universally to the item but be of interest 
> only to the location cited."
>
> Roughly speaking, $5 indicates that the field is either copy-specific 
> or catalogue-specific; as a special collections cataloguer I'd 
> naturally be very happy to see $5 defined for all 6XX fields for the 
> latter. (We once used 69X for catalogue-specific indexing, but that's 
> not an option in our present system.) (I also occasionally use 500 $5 
> to deal with non-unique/non-universal states, especially in cases 
> where I suspect that I'm dealing with such a thing but cannot be 
> certain using available resources.)
>
> Bob's last question rightly verges on the horrified rhetorical. My 
> guess is that subject indexing has not been a regular feature of 
> German catalogues (if I judge rightly from frequent use of the KVK), 
> and is therefore less conventionalized than it is in Anglo-American 
> practice; and therefore that the proposed use of $5 is really more to 
> specify the source of the heading than it is to localize the impulse 
> to apply the heading--which is more properly the function of $2. If 
> this is so, then perhaps some adaptation of that subfield would be 
> more appropriate--e.g. something like "$2local (RPB)", which would 
> simply extend a provision in MARC Code List for Relators, Sources, 
> Description Conventions, Part IV:
>
> "A special non-specific source code for subject/index terms has been 
> assigned for use in fields 654-658, and 755. The code local, meaning 
> 'locally assigned', should be used whenever a term is a local 
> extension of a published list (e.g., a locally established term that 
> follows the guidelines for particular thesaurus), or a term comes 
> from a local standard."
>
> The necessary tags, indicators, and subfields are already in place to 
> do just that.
>
> RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN
> UNIVERSITY
> PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-2093 :
> RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU 
>
>
>   

-- 
Barry E. Hinman	
Special Collections Librarian for Cataloging
Department of Special Collections and University Archives
Green Library (Bing Wing 408)
557 Escondido Mall
Stanford, California  94305-6004
bhinman at stanford.edu