[DCRM-L] Cataloging of single leaves

[Dooley,Jackie]

I would like to second Richard’s statement about local protocols. As “repurposing” of our data (of all kinds) becomes more and more prevalent, local practice that’s inconsistent with standards will cause real problems down the line. In addition to field display, another increasingly important aspect of WorldCat is its ability to point searchers to libraries that have relevant holdings—so it’s no longer even safe to mess with holdings standards without risking loss of systemwide functionality. –Jackie

 

Jackie Dooley

Consulting Archivist

OCLC Research and the RLG Partnership

 

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 1:16 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Cataloging of single leaves

 

The trouble with such an approach is its dependency on local display protocols. In the case of union databases (think of the WorldCat in its increasingly various guises) it’s out of your hands and possibly up to some mischief.

<snip>

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 3:53 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Cataloging of single leaves

 

Another important aspect to this is where the cataloger puts the note and how the opac displays it. We use holdings field 852 ‡z for all copy-specific notes. It's a stretch of the MARC 21 definition, which is supposed to be a public note about the location, but all things considered we're comfortable with this approach. The advantage: such notes display immediately with the copy to which they pertain, rather than being buried somewhere in general notes. E.g.,

 

http://shakespeare.folger.edu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?BBID=208274 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20100406/22302702/attachment.htm