[DCRM-L] Subfield $5 / Several cataloguing questions

[Katy Rawdon-Faucett]

I wasn't sure what the response to my original email would be, but I
have to say that I am thrilled with the helpful suggestions I have
received, as well as the very interesting overall discussion. Many of my
questions have been answered to my satisfaction, but many others have
been raised.

 

I think part of what makes this all so interesting is, in fact, the
issue of institutional practice. I have received very different and even
contradictory responses, but they are all backed up by sound, local
reasoning. Now I "just" have to decide what our own practice will be,
and why...

 

The issue of OCLC is one that I keep coming back to as I read messages
on this list. Aside from my own personal misgivings about OCLC as the
single national catalogue, it also affects our cataloguing decisions. We
are currently not a member of OCLC and do not submit records, but I have
no doubt that will change sometime in the future. Do we want to record
our copy-specific notes on inscriptions, ownership, etc. in field that
may upload to OCLC? Is that appropriate? My instinct is to keep
copy-specific notes in fields which would display only in our own system
(or use a subfield 5 and have them stripped out). But is that then
removing information that might be useful to a researcher? Because I do
not regularly use or catalogue for OCLC, I do not have a real sense of
what is expected, or approved of, or what is "normal" practice. I have a
general feeling that I am missing something... Or perhaps the whole
OCLC/RLIN issue really is just that confusing.

 

(And speaking of library software, we are in the process of seeking out
a new system ourselves. If anyone wants to share advice,
recommendations, battle stories, etc. - off list, maybe? - I would be
grateful).

 

-Katy

 

____________________
Katy Rawdon-Faucett
Archivist and Librarian
The Barnes Foundation
300 North Latch's Lane
Merion, PA  19066-1759
Ph:  (610) 667-0290 ext. 1048
Fax: (610) 664-4026
krawdon at barnesfoundation.org
<blocked::mailto:krawdon at barnesfoundation.org> 
www.barnesfoundation.org/archives.html 



 

-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Karen Nipps
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 9:37 AM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Cc: overholt at fas.harvard.edu; Andrea Cawelti; nipps at fas.harvard.edu;
mslevy at fas.harvard.edu; walker2 at fas.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Subfield $5 / Several cataloguing questions

 

Well, David (Woodruff) and Katy (Rawdon-Faucett), when you asked these 

innocent questions, did you ever imagine such a multi-faceted 

response?!?! Just goes to show that cataloging really IS an art (if also


a science).

 

And this is why I so rarely weigh in on these sorts of issues. So very 

much depends on institutional practice, local system operations, and 

individual interpretations. It has, for instance, been my experience, 

that the larger and more complex the organization, the more cautious one


has to be about making one's records work ONLY for one's own 

constituents. This is increasingly becoming the case as OCLC retools 

itself as the single on-line national union catalog and Ex-Libris seems 

to be attempting to swallow up the entire international library software


community.

 

However, in this case, I am going to voice an opinion and agree with 

Nina and Richard on the 650 score, largely because MARC21, as Nina 

points out, directly says using a subfield 5 is permissible under the 

defined circumstances. For those of us who load records into OCLC, this 

is in fact why the subfield 5 is so important, as it is a way to strip 

local headings out of exported records.

 

As for the 500 / 590 issue, it is dangerous to assume that most 

institutions out there use 590s. But whether you do or don't, IMHO, it 

doesn't matter that much - what is important is the language you use 

when inserting your note. And this is where the "art" bit comes in. My 

simple (!) advice is use as much language as it necessary to 

contextualize your own copy and to justify any added entries you make. 

More is better - but too much is worse! :) Granted, if you are bound by 

space limitations (either electronic or paper), that advice must itself 

be qualified ...

 

The 692 field is a local field (all X90s are). It is Yale's choice to 

use it. At Houghton, the use of X90s in bibliographic records for 

printed material is strictly forbotten. (Not true of other parts of 

Harvard.) Rather, a note is made in the 561 in the holdings record 

describing the inscription and a 700 is made in the bibliographic record


with subfield "e"s and "5"s  added. 

 

Hope this rambling helps! - Karen

 

 

-- 

*************************************

Karen Nipps, Senior Rare Book Cataloger

Houghton Library

Harvard University

Cambridge, MA 02138

(T) 617-495-2509; (F) 617-495-1376

 

**************************************

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20070110/03d98105/attachment.htm