[DCRM-L] 510 citations

[Manon Theroux]

Thanks to everyone for their responses, the discussion has been helpful. As
you might have guessed, the two examples were derived from the DCRM(C)
draft. Here is what I think we're going to do, based on what we've heard so
far:

- Give the Maxted citation in a 500 field (because the item being cataloged
does not appear there). Don't submit Maxted for inclusion in SCF, but
do construct
the citation to match SCF principles (using the SCF format in the general
note would not be a requirement, just our own preference).

- Give the Hunter citation in a 510 field (because the item being cataloged
appears there). Hunter might not provide the most detailed of bibliographic
descriptions (!), but it does contain a basic "published description" in
narrative form that includes author, title, place, publisher, and date
information.[*] Don't submit Hunter for inclusion in SCF (not being a
bibliography or catalog, it doesn't fit the scope that has been defined for
SCF submissions), but do construct the citation to match SCF principles. A
resource doesn't have to be present in SCF to be cited in a 510 field.

If the SCF editorial team wants to expand the scope of the SCF beyond
bibliographies and catalogs, that's their call. I think it is certainly
possible for other types of reference sources and scholarly publications to
contain published descriptions of items being cataloged (even ones that
rival the most detailed bibliographies and catalogs) and maybe a more
refined set of criteria for submissions could be identified. But I can also
see how keeping the current scope might be seen as preferable to them for
practical reasons if nothing else (workload concerns!). Maybe something for
them to ponder and address in their guidelines at some point in the future.

[*] Why might a 510 citation still be desirable in this situation? My
personal take on this: Leading catalog users to sources that provide an
in-depth bibliographic description is only one reason we might want to make
510 citations. Even some bibliographies/catalogs provide only brief entries
- they can be closer to simple checklists. Sometimes the important thing is
simply the fact that the item being cataloged is *included* in the resource
being cited, that it constitutes one of a group of items that satisfies a
particular set of intellectual criteria. For example, in this particular
case (Hunter), maybe the history of papermaking is an especially important
area of research for your library, so you decide you want to start
collecting all the books mentioned in Hunter as important "firsts" in the
history of papermaking. If you asked your catalogers to provide those
Hunter citations in a standard way in 510 fields, the citations could be
more useful than they would be in simple 500 notes, especially if your
library has an index devoted to the 510 field. You could use a search of
the index to help select items for exhibits, classes, research, purchase,
etc. Also, although the citation might not lead to a comprehensive physical
description (full collation, etc.), it could lead to a more detailed
treatment of one particular aspect of the book (here, its paper) or the
circumstances surrounding its production (here, details on where and how
its paper was produced) and that seems worthwhile to me.

Manon

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Manon Theroux <manon.theroux at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi, everyone:
>
> I could use some clarification on citing resources in the MARC21 510
> field. If the resource to be cited is NOT a bibliography or catalog and
> doesn't contain a bibliographic description of the resource being
> cataloged, can the 510 field still be used for the citation or should the
> citation be incorporated into the general note? For example, citing an
> entry for a printer in a biographical dictionary to justified supplied
> dates in the 26X or citing an academic monograph to justify an attributed
> name. DCRM(B) suggests that you can ("or other authoritative reference
> sources") and points to SCF as a standard, but the SCF scope statement
> itself is a bit narrower: "bibliographies and catalogs (printed or
> electronic) that are useful in verifying, identifying, or describing items
> held in rare book or special collections libraries and that have been or
> are likely to be cited in bibliographic records, trade catalog
> descriptions, and bibliographies."
>
> Below are the relevant bits from DCRM(B), SCF, and MARC21.
>
> Thanks!
> Manon
>
> --
> Manon Théroux
> Head of Technical Services
> U.S. Senate Library
>
> ===================
> DCRM(B):
> 7B14. References to published descriptions
> 7B14.1. Give references to published descriptions in bibliographies or
> other authoritative reference sources if these have been used to supply
> elements of the description. Use the form and punctuation conventions
> recommended by Standard Citation Forms for Published Bibliographies and
> Catalogs Used in Rare Book Cataloging. Begin the note with the word
> “References” and a colon.
> References: Evans 24658
> (Comment: Made in conjunction with a general note reading: “Publication
> date
> from Evans”)
>
> 7B14.2. Make other references to published descriptions, if considered
> important. Such references are especially useful whenever the cited source
> would serve to distinguish an edition (or variant) from similar editions
> (or variants), substantiate information provided by the cataloger, or
> provide a more detailed description of the publication being cataloged.
> References: Gaskell, P. Baskerville, 17
> References: ESTC (CD-ROM, 2003 ed.) T60996
> References: Lindsay & Neu. French political pamphlets, 2194
> References: BM STC Italian, 1465-1600, p. 368
> References: Ritter, F. Incun. alsaciens de la Bib. nat. de Strasbourg, 277
> References: Palau y Dulcet (2. ed.) 19161
>
> 7B14.3. A general note may be made if a description of the publication
> being cataloged does not appear in a specific bibliographical reference
> source. Make such a note only if the publication fits the scope for that
> source and the source purports to be comprehensive for its scope. Preface
> the general note with the words “Not in” and a colon.
> Not in: Martin & Walter. Révolution française. Cf. IV:2, 9093
>
> -----------------------
> SCF Working Principles http://rbms.info/scf/working-principles/
>
> Scope:
>
> This database includes bibliographies and catalogs (printed or electronic)
> that are useful in verifying, identifying, or describing items held in rare
> book or special collections libraries and that have been or are likely to
> be cited in bibliographic records, trade catalog descriptions, and
> bibliographies.
>
> MARC 21 Bibliographic Format, Application:
>
> Use the citation forms recommended in this list when creating
> citation/references notes (field 510) in a MARC 21 bibliographic record.
> These notes are described in Descriptive Cataloging for Rare Materials
> (Books) 7B14.2 and other DCRM manuals.
>
> The citation/references note (510) field provides a simple bibliographical
> citation for a published description of an item and specifies where in the
> resources that description appears; do not include other information. If
> necessary, use a general note (field 500) to record additional information
> provided by the resource cited. Create a citation/references note (510)
> field for titles which might be useful for retrieval, even in cases where
> this would involve repetition of information already recorded in a general
> note:
>
> General note (500) field:
>
> 500 __ $a Evans calls this the 2nd edition.
>
> Citation/references note (510) field:
>
> 510 4_ $a Evans, C. American bibliography, $c entry 14023
>
> -----------------------
> MARC21, 510 Field https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd510.html
>
> Definition and Scope:
>
> Citations or references to published bibliographic descriptions, reviews,
> abstracts, or indexes of the content of the described item.
>
> Used to specify where an item has been cited or reviewed. Citations or
> references may be given in a brief form (i.e., using generally recognizable
> abbreviations, etc.). The actual text of a published description is not
> recorded in field 510 but rather in field 520 (Summary, Etc. Note).
>
> For *books* and *music*, this field contains references to published
> descriptions of the item (e.g., descriptions of rare materials recorded in
> a brief, standardized format) or reviews (e.g., reviews in professional
> literature).
>
> For *continuing resources*, this field is used to specify publications in
> which a continuing resource has been indexed and/or abstracted and the
> dates of coverage, if known. The indexing and abstracting services
> referenced are primarily those issued as continuing resources. Certain
> monographic titles, particularly those that are standard reference tools in
> a subject area or that cover periods of time not included in continuing
> publications, may also be given in this field.
>
> For unpublished *visual materials* or graphic items collectively
> controlled, this field contains references to published descriptions of the
> work or collection. Citations to reviews of projected *visual materials*
> are also recorded in this field.
>
> For *mixed materials*, this field contains references to publications in
> which abstracts, citations, descriptions, or indexes of the described
> materials have appeared.
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150812/a40c5c57/attachment.html>