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

[Manon Theroux]

I will also throw my hat in with those who see $5 
as potentially useful for all 6xx not just 655.

The question of whether to allow $5 in situations 
that are not strictly copy-specific is a little 
trickier but since the current MARC21 definition 
for the subfield does allow it and there do seem 
to be situations when it could be useful, I think 
I would also lean towards allowing it. Seems like 
we can break down 6xx/7xx headings in special 
collections that could make use of $5 as follows:

Headings that are clearly "copy-specific":
-- 6xx (e.g. what is "depicted" in a fore-edge 
painting or what a tipped-in ms. letter is "about")
-- 655 (e.g. the fact that a particular copy 
includes something that "is" a fore-edge painting 
or "is" a tipped-in ms. letter)
-- 7xx (e.g. who executed the fore-edge painting 
or who wrote the tipped-in letter)

Headings that are of primarily "institutional interest":
-- 6xx (a level of subject indexing that is 
deeper than what most institutions would find 
acceptable or desirable, e.g. 
"African-Americans$zVirginia$vFiction" to 
describe a novel featuring a single 
African-American character who appears in only 2 
out of 200 pages - because that library has a 
"research collection" of African-American materials)
-- 655 (a level of genre indexing that is deeper 
than what most institutions would find acceptable 
or desirable, e.g. "Limericks" added to a book of 
200 pages that contains only a single limerick - 
because that library collects books with limericks)
-- 7xx (e.g., a name-title analytic for a single 
poem by John Betjeman in an anthology containing 
poems by 100 other authors - because that library 
has a comprehensive Betjeman collection)

The decision on how exactly to tag such headings 
would be influenced by such things as:
1. Whether the headings are constructed in 
accordance with a standard source or non-standard 
local conventions or some combination of the two.
2. For 6xx that use a standard source, whether 
that source is identified using an indicator 
value or a combination of indicator plus $2
3. How your local system handles such things as 
indexing, display, hyperlinking, and heading 
validation (e.g. Yale uses 69x but they do NOT 
validate and we had to create a separate index for them)
4. Whether your records must "play well" with 
other records in your local system (e.g. 
non-special collections records or special 
collections records from other units)
5. Whether you use an authorities vendor (or 
might in the future) and how the vendor does its 
heading matching and processing (e.g. Yale had to customize 69x processing).
6. Whether you contribute records to a 
bibliographic utility (or utilities) or might in 
the future and how the utilities handle the data
7. Past practice at your institution

None of this seems directly relevant to the MARBI 
Discussion Paper that John brought to our 
attention, since that DP is proposing using 6xx 
$5 in a different context. I think our reasons 
for possibly adding 6xx $5 are actually better 
than theirs (though, like Bob, I'm not 100% sure I understand theirs)!

-Manon


>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.

____________________________________________

Manon Théroux
Authority Control Librarian
Catalog Department
Yale University Library
P.O. Box 208240
New Haven, CT 06520-8240

203-432-8376 (tel)
203-432-7231 (fax)
manon.theroux at yale.edu 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20070110/78e67bef/attachment.htm