[DCRM-L] MARC fields 751 and 752

Wed Dec 2 10:55:27 MST 2015

Since the data in 752 is hierarchical, it seems it should be relatively easy to clean it up manually. Couldn't one rather easily set up spreadsheets and look up all the, say, Pennsylvania imprints to see if there are transcription errors? It seems like the effort to make it authority controlled might be more trouble than it's worth. Especially putting a $0 after each field seems like a lot of work. And if you're going to set up local authorities for, say, Saint Louis, Missouri, it will require work to check the nationally established form to create the authority. Why not just assign a staff member now and then to clean errors up? For ILS systems there are usually reports that can be generated that might, perhaps, flag any data that is unusual. So, for example, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is an extremely common imprint for 19th century books. But if you ever had Philadelphia, Mississippi in a 752, that might be worth checking.

I wonder if a mixed approach might work, too: authority control all the higher-level entities ($a and $b) and allow the $d to be cleaned up manually. Or maybe just authority control the really common ones like Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. That way, if someone has misspelled Birmingham, England, a book will still be retrievable as an English imprint until the cleanup is done.

Just a few thoughts.
Ted Gemberling
UAB Lister Hill Library

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 9:25 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] MARC fields 751 and 752

The system allows us to make local authority formats that can control given fields in the bibliographic record. We assign a 1XX to the authorized access point in the authority record and that links to whatever bib field we've told it to link to. In addition to 752, we've also made an authority format to control the 510 field. Of course, all the authority records are local, and are not registered anywhere, so Jane's question about where any $0 should point remains a good one.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
________________________________
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>> on behalf of Gillis, Jane <jane.gillis at yale.edu<mailto:jane.gillis at yale.edu>>
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2015 8:00:11 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] MARC fields 751 and 752

I don't see any reason not to add the relationship designator and code to the 752.

But, as far as the $0 goes, it is possible to add it to the 752, but where?  After each entity?  So far, there is no authority record for "United States. Pennsylvania. Philadelphia".  If you wanted to put this under authority control, would you have "United States $0 [URI]. Pennsylvania $0 [URI]. Philadelphia $0 [URI]?   Or, would you create an authority for the string?  The URL that Francis put in his example is for "Philadelphia (Pa.)"  I looked at the $0 in MARC21, Appendix A Control Fields,  and there are only 2 examples, both people, so I don't know how it is applied to the 752.  Maybe Bob Maxwell can tell us how SIRSI puts the 752 under authority control.

Jane

Jane Gillis
Rare Book Cataloger
Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library
Yale University Library
jane.gillis at yale.edu<mailto:jane.gillis at yale.edu>
phone: 203-432-2633
fax: 203-432-4047

The Beinecke Library's building is closed for renovation until September 2016.  We have opened a temporary reading room in Sterling Memorial Library, but access to some collections may be limited during the renovation. For more information, visit our renovation website<http://beineckelibraryrenovation.yale.edu/>.

Please note: The Beinecke Library will close completely during the month of August 2016 as staff and collections are relocated to the building at 121 Wall Street in preparation for our reopening in September 2016.

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Lapka, Francis
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 9:21 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] MARC fields 751 and 752

This may be an area where a primary concern is: How well will the data play with whatever content standard or model that comes next? To fulfill its function, our place data needs to uniquely identify the place and unambiguously identify the relationship between the resource and the place. If we add relators to the 752 field, then both 751 and 752 will do the job.

FWIW, both 751 and 752 already include subfield 0, for recording an authority record control number - which is a step in the direction of establishing a relationship via a URI. For example:

751 __ $a Roma $0 (DE-101b)1030696-1 $2 gkd $4 dbp

If we use the data to establish relationships to places as entities - e.g., to http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n78095520<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__id.loc.gov_authorities_names_n78095520&d=AwMGaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=n8dDRUidMOlWzQ1Q9gPA3IBl5z2jmzivxtidHI4AB8M&m=Dc2AKMuC7MCZ3Q-O0bK9l-IuaAK_k5qmdbH9wnEFs_A&s=hCLoelRXnrlSZAZg_JHJbMJgNtvyydVeeZPatDDlXII&e=> -- then our catalogs should be able to generate the labels or access points that are most appropriate in a given context (among other useful things).

I would support a proposal to add fields for relators in MARC 752.

Francis

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Matthew C. Haugen
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 12:59 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] MARC fields 751 and 752

I agree with Francis that the ability to specify the nature of the PPDM relationship would be beneficial and consistent with the apparent direction of RDA, whether in the 752 or 751.

The hierarchical approach of the 752 seems well suited for card catalog style indexing and browsing since the additional intermediate or superior jurisdictional/elements that enable searches for imprints at any of those levels don't exist in the direct NAF 1xx forms or in the 781 geographic subdivision entries. Maybe some have developed local systems to do so, but 752 does not seem to mesh as well with current abilities for controlling and linking to NAF/LCSH forms because the composite 752 and the individual elements do not necessarily match the NAF.

So whatever approach we take on the 751 or 752 in bib records, it might also be good to have a parallel for the full hierarchy in MARC authority format, so that 752 United States $b Pennsylvania $d Philadelphia could be controlled, or so that 751 Philadelphia (Pa.) could be accessed hierarchically.

While we're at it, would it be worthwhile to add $5 (institution to which field applies) to 751 and/or 752 for recording copy-specific relationships to places?

Matt

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Fell, Todd <todd.fell at yale.edu<mailto:todd.fell at yale.edu>> wrote:
I would agree with Richard; retain the usage of the 752 while advocating for the ability to provide relationship designators.

Todd

Todd Fell
Head, Rare Book Cataloging Unit
Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library
P.O. Box 208330
New Haven, CT 06520-8330
(203) 432-5178<tel:%28203%29%20432-5178>

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 10:02 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] MARC fields 751 and 752

I would strongly favor the addition of relators to the 752 field. One of its greatest strengths is the hierarchical format, which makes it possible to browse lower elements of the hierarchy without prior knowledge of their existence in the database, ordered according to a specifically geographical logic, i.e. how we think about places.

The format of 751 is the equivalent of 700s in direct order without see from references--not optimal, i.e. not how we think about names.

RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187<tel:401-863-1187>
<Richard_Noble at Br<mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__own.edu&d=AwMGaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=4SoaKQp9fbu3YCwWmcrPmlUK8qBOAIyVbLvqRJOpJ6c&s=03iPUfwzE8_HMwDuqvHYtdwzjWMe3ZAA3ofiwcH75_4&e=>>

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>> wrote:
In 2007, MARBI approved creation of MARC field 751:

Added entry in which the entry element is a geographic name that is related to a particular attribute of the described item, e.g., the place of publication for a rare book, place of distribution, place of a university to which a dissertation is submitted, place of an event such as a conference, etc.
http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd751.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.loc.gov_marc_bibliographic_bd751.html&d=AwMFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=Np9Dv-N85TxuwGXDqbzvM-I_B1c6fwLXrzKWWE4fD3I&m=ec9YaTLEpvsUDXdQr0RrviQsln6PykiXKUdOOZBTu-M&s=kwJIb1eCMwUqrahFc4Pahg3Xx6BsyOSTYTe0ToDDt78&e=>

The scope of this field is similar to that of the 752, which substitutes "hierarchical form of place name" for "geographic name."

Compare the results:

751 __ $a Lyon (France) $e publication place [or $4 pup]

752 __ $a France $d Lyon.

While we may debate the merits of recording the entry element in hierarchical form (752) or a form as entered in an authority file (751), the 751 has at least one clear advantage: it allows us to specify the nature of the relationship between the place and the resource, via subfields $e or $4. These subfields are not available in the 752.

I fear our 752 tracings are regrettably ambiguous. They fail to indicate whether the data is about a place of production, publication, distribution, or manufacture.

Before long, it is very likely that the option to record relationships to PPDM places will be formalized in RDA. See:

FRBR Library Reference Model: http://library.ifla.org/1084/1/207-riva-en.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__library.ifla.org_1084_1_207-2Driva-2Den.pdf&d=AwMFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=Np9Dv-N85TxuwGXDqbzvM-I_B1c6fwLXrzKWWE4fD3I&m=ec9YaTLEpvsUDXdQr0RrviQsln6PykiXKUdOOZBTu-M&s=ZbgJoHbks_WXFWixeV71b9VPCzKOvK615rcGcgaVh1E&e=>
Proposed revisions to RDA 2.7-2.10: http://www.rda-rsc.org/6JSC/BL%20rep/2<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rda-2Drsc.org_6JSC_BL-2520rep_2&d=AwMGaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=4SoaKQp9fbu3YCwWmcrPmlUK8qBOAIyVbLvqRJOpJ6c&s=fLDMF_YkdfrUsq-IjTa8XdHh400n19Hd6T6lzYgXmc4&e=>

Given that RDA will soon emphasize related places, I think now would be a good time to modify our practice so that we can make explicit the nature of these relationships (of course agencies are free to do as they please). Might we consider it best practice to use the 751 instead of the 752? Or could we request a modification to the 752 field to add subfields in which to record the relationship designator and/or code? Are any on this list already using the 751 field?

Francis

Francis Lapka  *  Catalog Librarian
Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts
Yale Center for British Art
203.432.9672<tel:203.432.9672>  *  francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>

--

--
Matthew C. Haugen
Rare Book Cataloger
102 Butler Library
Columbia University Libraries
E-mail: matthew.haugen at columbia.edu<mailto:matthew.haugen at columbia.edu>
Phone: 212-851-2451
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20151202/7a3ff52f/attachment-0001.html>