[DCRM-L] Comments please: Subfield $5
nschneider at nypl.org
nschneider at nypl.org
Tue Jan 9 13:30:29 MST 2007
I'm going to jump in and say that I'm all for including subfield $5 at the
end of 6xx fields. Why? Because the Berg collects materials based on
authors. We have (and have had) many instances of serials to which the New
York Public Library subscribes but the Berg Collection buys a specific
issue of The New Yorker, for instance, because there is a contribution by
one of our authors or there is a special named issue in a literary journal
with writings by and about that author.
Our serials cataloging department *hates* when we add specific subject
headings. If there was an option to include (for example) : "Kerouac,
Jack,$d1922-1969$xCriticism and interpretation" to a serials record so that
readers would find it when searching for information about Jack Kerouac
when they are in New York Public Library, that would be helpful. This
particular subject wouldn't need to be imported by Yale or Harvard for
their own serials records.
The same could be said with monographs, either anthologies or essay
collections. The easiest way to do this, I think, is to allow subfield $5.
Putting institutional codes in $2 might get confusing since $2 is used to
designate thesauri.
MARC21 allows $5 to be used for both purposes:
"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 to the location cited."
(http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/ecbdcntf.html)
Nina
+------------------
Nina Schneider
Librarian
Berg Collection of English & American Literature, Room 320
The New York Public Library
Fifth Avenue and 42nd Street
New York, NY 10018-2788
Tel.: (212) 642-0111
Fax.: (212) 930-0079
nschneider at nypl.org
"Barry E. Hinman"
<bhinman at stanford
.edu> To
Sent by: DCRM Revision Group List
dcrm-l-bounces at li <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
b.byu.edu cc
Subject
01/09/2007 02:42 Re: [DCRM-L] Comments please:
PM Subfield $5
Please respond to
DCRM Revision
Group List
<dcrm-l at lib.byu.e
du>
All our 590 notes begin with the name of the department:
Special Collections and University Archives copy 1 [or 2, etc]:
The field is used occasionally by other libraries at Stanford, and they
would typically have, for example:
Green copy 1
Deborah J. Leslie wrote:
> 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
More information about the DCRM-L
mailing list