[DCRM-L] Comments please: Subfield $5

Tue Jan 9 11:49:31 MST 2007

I agree that the usage should be kept as copy-specific only, but David 
Woodruff is right that some copies may have additional material that 
should be brought out in subject headings other than 655 headings.  For 
example, a book could have manuscript map that would require a 650 or 651 
heading.  In such a case the subfield $5 would be appropriate.  If one is 
adding subject headings to bring out topics that are locally significant, 
I am ambivalent about the use of the subfield $5.  That is the use would 
be technically appropriate but confusing.  My general approach is that of 
a late friend that "any subject headings are gravy" (he wasn't a librarian 
but a scholar of 16-17th century English poetry).  Unless the the subject 
heading is totally inappropriate, I would tend to leave it and to tell the 
shared catalogers I supervise to leave the heading.
 	Larry Creider

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:

> That's right; it would only be used in practice with 655.
>
> ______________________________________________________
> 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 Robert Maxwell
> Sent: Tuesday, 09 January, 2007 12:26
> To: DCRM Revision Group List
> Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] Comments please: Subfield $5
>
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>