[DCRM-L] MARC Advisory Committee papers

Fri Dec 16 08:06:02 MST 2016

In such a case as this, I would create a separate bib record for the
drawing, obviously including a note regarding its occurrence in another
resource, and link the bib record to the III item record, with a 590 note
in the book record. I also include reciprocal 856 links between the bib
records. That allows for unambiguous allocation of descriptive and subject
information without a lot of explanatory verbiage.

That said, I've always regarded the $5 as an identifier for
institution-specific as well as copy-specific information in the local
record (not the master record). Is it "written" that it denotes
copy-specific only?

RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
<Richard_Noble at Br <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Erin Blake <EBlake at folger.edu> wrote:

> It honestly never occurred to me that $5 could mean "true of all copies
> but only relevant to this institution" rather than "true only of this
> institution's copy."
>
> But I have a real life example where we wanted to use a 650 $5 for
> copy-specific information, and couldn't: a 17th-century book with a
> spectacular contemporary drawing of a ship in it. We could add a 655
> Drawings with $5 DFo, but couldn't add the 650 for "Ships -- 17th-century,
> depicted."
>
> EB.
>
> ________
>
>
> Erin C. Blake, Ph.D.  |  Head of Collection Information Services  |
> Folger Shakespeare Library  |  201 E. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC,
> 20003  |  eblake at folger.edu  |  office tel. +1 202-675-0323  |  fax +1
> 202-675-0328  |  www.folger.edu
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] on behalf
> of Schneider, Nina [nschneider at humnet.ucla.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 2:59 PM
> To: DCRM Users' Group
> Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] MARC Advisory Committee papers
>
> Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Francis. The questions at the
> end of Discussion Paper no. 2017-DP05 are interesting and relevant to our
> community. I think it would be helpful if we could provide feedback.
>
> The questions are:
>
> 5. QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSSION
>
> 5.1. Is the need to provide the information that a specific institution
> has added a subject heading according to its rules and regulations to a
> MARC record esteemed beneficial?
>
> 5.2. Does the definition of a subfield $5 in the fields 6XX solve the
> issue?
>
> 5.3. Or is there an existing format element which can be used instead?
>
> 5.4. Are there any potential problems that should be taken into account?
> There have been times when I’ve cataloged something and hoped to use a 6xx
> field to help locate materials on a specific subject. In fact, there are
> many instances of acquiring certain materials we wouldn’t consider
> otherwise based solely on the subject of one aspect of the manifestation –
> a mention of Oscar Wilde’s tombstone in a book on stonecutting, for
> example. Our Wilde scholars would like to know that there is information
> about Epstein’s work in an unexpected resource, but aren’t interested in in
> the subject of stonecutting. Since this piece of information is important
> to us, but not to everyone else, the subfield $5 is one way to handle
> it...but this information is not copy-specific and I think that it could
> become confusing for researchers. Librarians and catalogers have become
> accustomed to understanding subfield $5 as copy-specific, so would adding
> it to additional 6xx fields cause unnecessary confusion? I know there is
> (or was) a 69x field for local subject access fields. Perhaps this could be
> used instead and if there are multiple libraries from the same institution
> interested in different aspects of a work, they could add their own
> institution code to subfield $5.
>
> +---------------
> Nina M. Schneider
> Chair, RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee
>
> Rare Books Librarian
> William Andrews Clark Memorial Library
> 2520 Cimarron Street
> Los Angeles, CA  90018
> (323) 731-8529
>
> nschneider at humnet.ucla.edu
> http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/clarklib/
>
>
>
> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
> Behalf Of Lapka, Francis
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 5:36 AM
> To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
> Subject: [DCRM-L] MARC Advisory Committee papers
>
> The Midwinter agenda of the MARC Advisory Committee is now available here (
> http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/mw2017_age.html), and copied below.
>
> At least two agenda topics may be of particular interest to our community:
>
>
> -          Proposal No. 2017-05: Defining a New Subfield in Field 340 to
> Record Color Content in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
>
> -          Discussion Paper No. 2017-DP05: Providing Institution Level
> Information by Defining Subfield $5 in the 6XX Fields of the MARC 21
> Bibliographic Format.
>
> I’d be happy to forward any comments.
>
> Francis
>
>
>
>
> MARC Advisory Committee
> (MAC)
> ALA Midwinter CONFERENCE
> January 21-22, 2017
> Atlanta, GA
> DRAFT AGENDA (December 13, 2016)
>
> Saturday, January 21, 2017, 8:30-10:00 a.m. (Georgia World Congress Center
> (GWCC), A316)
>
>   1.  Introduction of members
>   2.  Approval of minutes from MAC's June 2016 meetings
>   3.  Proposal No. 2017-01<http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-01.html>:
> Redefining Subfield $4 to Encompass URIs for Relationships in the MARC 21
> Authority and Bibliographic Formats
>   4.  Discussion Paper No. 2017-DP01 (pending): Use of $0 and $1 to
> Capture Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) in MARC 21 Formats
>   5.  Discussion Paper No. 2017-DP02<http://www.loc.gov/
> marc/mac/2017/2017-dp02.html>: Defining Field 758 (Related Work
> Identifier) in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats
>   6.  Proposal No. 2017-02<http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-02.html>:
> Defining New Subfields $i, $3, and $4 in Field 370 of the MARC 21
> Bibliographic and Authority Formats
>   7.  Proposal No. 2017-03<http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-03.html>:
> Defining New Subfields $i and $4 in Field 386 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic
> and Authority Formats
>   8.  Business meeting/Library of Congress report/Other
>
> Sunday, January 22, 2017, 3:00-5:30 p.m. (Georgia World Congress Center
> (GWCC), A316)
>
>   1.  Continuation of any discussion from previous meeting.
>   2.  Proposal No. 2017-04<http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-04.html>:
> Using a Classification Record Control Number as a Link in the MARC 21
> Bibliographic and Authority Formats
>   3.  Proposal No. 2017-05<http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-05.html>:
> Defining a New Subfield in Field 340 to Record Color Content in the MARC 21
> Bibliographic Format
>   4.  Proposal No. 2017-06<http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-06.html>:
> Adding Subfields $b, $2, and $0 to Field 567 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic
> Format
>   5.  Proposal No. 2017-07<http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-07.html>:
> Adding Value “No information provided” to the First Indicator of Field 070
> in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
>   6.  Discussion Paper No. 2017-DP03<http://www.loc.gov/
> marc/mac/2017/2017-dp03.html>: Defining New Fields to Record
> Accessibility Content in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
>   7.  Discussion Paper No. 2017-DP04<http://www.loc.gov/
> marc/mac/2017/2017-dp04.html>: Defining Subfields $u, $r and $z in Field
> 777 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
>   8.  Discussion Paper No. 2017-DP05<http://www.loc.gov/
> marc/mac/2017/2017-dp05.html>: Providing Institution Level Information by
> Defining Subfield $5 in the 6XX Fields of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
>
>
> Francis Lapka  ·  Catalog Librarian
> Dept. of Rare Books and Manuscripts
> Yale Center for British Art
> 203.432.9672  ·  francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20161216/1096a8b5/attachment-0001.html>