[DCRM-L] Comments please: Subfield $5

[Robert Maxwell]

Under Deborah's recommendation would there then be any reason for
subfield $5 in 6XX other than 655? How could you have a heading that was
*about* a manifestation of a work (i.e. the level of our catalog
records) that was local, i.e., only *about* it at BYU but not about it
at Yale? (As opposed to a heading that is narrower than most other
libraries would like in their catalog but is nonetheless about some
aspect of the manifestation.)

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568  

>-----Original Message-----
>From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu 
>[mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
>Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 9:27 AM
>To: DCRM Revision Group List
>Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] Comments please: Subfield $5
>
>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 
>
>
>