[DCRM-L] Comments please: Subfield $5

[Robert Maxwell]

And don't forget that subfield $5 can be used on more 5XX fields than
500. 590 is only equivalent to 500, i.e., it is a general note. But it
is useful (for the same reasons as we like specificity for non-local
information--if for nothing else than for labelling, but also for
precision in searching) to put local information into specific MARC
fields, such as 506 (restrictions on access). $5 is also authorized for
501 (with), though I think most of us continue to use 590 for local
bound with information. I can see potential uses for $5 in other 5XX
notes for which it isn't currently authorized (e.g., suppose I want to
make a note for a bit player in a movie who is locally prominent--it
would be useful for labeling and indexing to put his/her name in the
performer note, 511, and then code it local with $5). 

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 10:11 AM
>To: DCRM Revision Group List
>Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] Comments please: Subfield $5
>
>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
>
>