[DCRM-L] 510 citations

[Laurence S. Creider]

Looks good to me.  Thank you, Manon.  I would add to your scenarios that
these fields can also useful for catalogers.  Someone who may not have
thought to use the examples you mention, for instance.

Larry
-- 
Laurence S. Creider
Head, Archives and Special Collections Dept.
University Library
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 575-646-4756
Fax: 575-646-7477
lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu

On Wed, August 12, 2015 8:04 am, Manon Theroux wrote:
> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>