[DCRM-L] Comments please: Subfield $5 - copy specific notes

Mon Jan 15 08:12:35 MST 2007

E.C. makes a good point. Many of you have heard me say this: we at the Folger use redundant copy note fields, and it's a little more complex than I suggested by saying that we use a 590. 

RLIN: we use a 590, with preface "Folger copy:"

Hamnet (our local Voyager system): in the bibliographic record, we use 876$z to contain copy-specific notes. This field is set NOT TO DISPLAY, but it IS KEYWORD INDEXED. 

In the holdings record, we have a redundant 876$z, which IS SET TO DISPLAY. We have designed the 876 to produce a "Folger copy" label in our local display. The contents of the note is keyword-searchable, because it also exists in the bibliographic record. Not perfect, but it works pretty well for now ... until our local systems evolve to the point that they can get all holdings information displayed and indexed--and this includes headings that pertain only to the copy.  

For an example in Hamnet, see http://shakespeare.folger.edu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?BBID=163897
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
Head of CatalogingFolger Shakespeare Library
201 East Capitol St., S.E.
Washington, DC 20003
202.675-0369
djleslie at folger.edu

________________________________

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu on behalf of E. C. Schroeder
Sent: Mon 2007-01-15 09:21
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] Comments please: Subfield $5 - copy specific notes

I'm only now catching up on reading this thread.  One new twist on where to
include copy specific notes is to input them as a |z note in the 852 field
of the holdings record.  At Yale, the main catalog department has started
to do this for some of its records.  In particular this is done for bound
with notes and links to digitized versions.

At this time Beinecke has continued to use the 590 field, and will
continued to do so for the forseeable future.

E.C. Schroeder

At 12:10 PM 1/9/2007, you 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 12840 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20070115/a9f28c61/attachment.bin 