[DCRM-L] MARC Advisory Committee papers

Fri Dec 16 08:52:05 MST 2016

Indeed. Making a separate record is something we'd like to do in all cases, too (see instructions for "Hybrid material<http://folgerpedia.folger.edu/Hybrid_material>" in Folgerpedia). But in this case, the extra time to make a DCRM(G) record wasn't worth it given the back-log of stand-alone prints and drawings. Having the book cataloger be able to provide subject access to a picture of a ship would have been enough for starters.

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<mailto:eblake at folger.edu>  |  office tel. +1 202-675-0323<tel:%2B1%20202-675-0323>  |  fax +1 202-675-0328<tel:%2B1%20202-675-0328>  |  www.folger.edu<http://www.folger.edu/>

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 10:06 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] MARC Advisory Committee papers

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<mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu<http://own.edu>>

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Erin Blake <EBlake at folger.edu<mailto: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<mailto:eblake at folger.edu>  |  office tel. +1 202-675-0323<tel:%2B1%20202-675-0323>  |  fax +1 202-675-0328<tel:%2B1%20202-675-0328>  |  www.folger.edu<http://www.folger.edu>

________________________________________
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 Schneider, Nina [nschneider at humnet.ucla.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:203.432.9672>  ·  francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu><mailto: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/20161216/9eb0b561/attachment-0001.html>