[DCRM-L] Folger HBCN's

[Alice Hanes]

Dorothy, thank you for taking the time to verbalize what, I think, has been my underlying instinct to "justify/inform an element of the basic bibliographic description" in an original record, and also for providing such good examples of your local practices.

Alice H. Hanes
Technical Services Librarian
Hagley Museum and Library
298 Buck Road East
Wilmington, DE 19807-0630
(302) 658-2400 x234

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Auyong, Dorothy
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 3:04 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Folger HBCN's

Alice,

The distinction I learned re: 500 |5 vs. 590 was that if you are using something from your copy to justify/inform an element of the basic bibliographic description of the item in hand, then you should code it 500 with a subfield 5 to alert the rest of the cataloging community "Hey this may apply to your copy".  590s were used for copy-specific information which may or may not inform other copies.  But other libraries certainly vary in practice.

Example

Imprint reads, "London, sold by Thomas Warwick at Alder's Lane"  [this is made up]

Huntington copy has an manuscript annotation, "purchased 1765"

I might catalog it

260  |a London: |b sold by Thomas Warwick at Alder's Lane, | c [ before 1765]

500  Huntington Library copy has manuscript annotation "purchased 1765"|5 CSmH

590  Bound in brown leather with gilt stamping.


Granted this distinction was made back in our old RLIN days, but I tried to carry it over for OCLC.

So in general I would have 500 |5 s in original cataloging and not in copy cataloging.

Dorothy Auyong
Principal Catalog Librarian/Archivist
Henry E. Huntington Library
Acquistions Cataloging and Metadata Services
dauyong at huntington.org



From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Alice Hanes
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 7:15 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Folger HBCN's

Serendipity!  This is why I love the user group ... and Monday mornings.  Thank you, Deborah, for sharing a practice that helps me deal with the "shaky foundations" of our own OPAC more positively.

As I reflect on my personal cataloging routines, I find that I tend to construct such notes in a MARC field 500, plus subfield #5, for original records, but a MARC field 590 for copy cataloging.  Yet I can no longer recall why I make this distinction.  Can anyone advise me on maintaining or amending this habit?

Thanks.

Alice H. Hanes
Technical Services Librarian
Hagley Museum and Library
298 Buck Road East
Wilmington, DE 19807-0630
(302) 658-2400 x234

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 Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 12:28 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: [DCRM-L] Folger HBCN's

Some of you may be interested in a practice we incorporated at the Folger a couple of years ago, as written up by our own Erin Blake: http://collation.folger.edu/2015/05/meet-the-hamnet-hbcn-handy-butt-cover-note/

Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> | 202.675-0369 | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 | www. folger.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150609/4879d555/attachment-0001.html>