[DCRM-L] subfields $3 and $5 to specify copies in MARC bib records

Thu Jan 14 13:06:03 MST 2016

Yes, that is a bit muddier (how glad I am that I don’t do serials for a living). Come the day that we create distinct descriptions for Item entities, we are likely to have an entity identified by “CtY-BR: Za Zp75 Copy 1”. But it is unlikely that we’d think it worthwhile to articulate a distinct entity to describe the sub-parts of that Item that have evidence of Laughlin’s ownership. So, building on Matt’s suggestion, an entry like this would probably suffice:

700 1_ ‡a Laughlin, James, ‡d 1914- ‡e former owner. ‡5 CtY-BR: Za Zp75 Copy 1

I agree, a modification of subfield ‡5 wouldn’t much impact our need to make notes that correspond to the copy-specific headings. It would, however, be logical to apply the same subfield ‡5 treatment in 590 fields, etc.

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Gillis, Jane
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 2:35 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] subfields $3 and $5 to specify copies in MARC bib records

For issues of a serial:

700 1_ ‡a Laughlin, James, ‡d 1914-  ‡e former owner. ‡5 CtY-BR ‡9 BEINYCAL Za Zp75 Copy 1: 138; v.139:2-3; 140:1,5-6; 41:1-2,6; 142:5-6; 143:2,4-5; 144:1-6; 145:1-2,5-6; 146:1-3,5-6; 147; 149,3,6; 150:2-6; 151:5-6; 152:1,6; 153:1-2; 153:3.

Here is the link to the record in Orbis: http://hdl.handle.net/10079/bibid/4463547<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__hdl.handle.net_10079_bibid_4463547&d=AwMF-Q&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=4UnPzpd8mZ4pqKVDIXUbRjLWt_YqTUIk2gqnIc_ld1U&s=8ho0VB9cFDw8jjzoMfi8tnoLzbyRbWgCHDhaFmRqiZg&e=>

I’m not sure how this will work—we would still need local notes (former owner because  of autograph, bookplate, presentation inscription, from the archives, etc.).  I also don’t know how the other delimiters would work.

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: Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:17 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] subfields $3 and $5 to specify copies in MARC bib records

I see the sense in that suggestion, too. Using a record control number would be the most explicit means possible to refer to a Holding entity (a copy). My concern with using $w is that this subfield may also serve as control number for the heading (e.g. the name or genre).

I suppose I imagined a subfield that isn’t too prescriptive about the form of identifier used. It could be the control number for the Holding, or it could be the full call number (and there are other possibilities), e.g.:

700 1_ ‡a Lindley, John, ‡d 1799-1865, ‡e former owner. ‡5 CtY-BA ‡9 BACRB G240 .H35 1589+

Mind you, I’m not entirely sure that such an addition/modification to our MARC vocabulary is necessary or will make our next transition easier, but I think it merits consideration.

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 Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 11:56 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] subfields $3 and $5 to specify copies in MARC bib records

What about dropping the "Bibliographic" from ‡w Bibliographic record control number, and authorize for a larger number of fields?

https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/ecbdcntf.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.loc.gov_marc_bibliographic_ecbdcntf.html&d=AwMF-Q&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=6NsVdZEESTdegHN3eSmGrE_-3euko22dM4BsGgzY_UU&s=NN0KxyBFRDOHiYBQOHCUdXnjWUhJ9KYOtcMK8lNUFpU&e=>

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

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, 13 January 2016 10:04
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: [DCRM-L] subfields $3 and $5 to specify copies in MARC bib records

As we prepare for life After-MARC, I think it would be handy to have a clear means to associate copy-specific data in a bib record with the copy to which it applies, for example for data in fields 655 and 7xx. I’m concerned that MARC doesn’t currently provide an adequate means.

MARC gives us subfield $5 to record the institution to which a field applies. But as defined, this field cannot specify a copy. See: http://www.loc.gov/marc/holdings/echdcntf.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.loc.gov_marc_holdings_echdcntf.html&d=AwMF-Q&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=6NsVdZEESTdegHN3eSmGrE_-3euko22dM4BsGgzY_UU&s=7vI2pE8-BPpdWx_jtgd8KjAJJFJGHG5H5vHWQTPZa9o&e=>

MARC gives us subfield $3 to record “the part of the described materials to which the field applies.” I have seen subfield $3 used to specify an individual copy – where there is more than one copy described in a bib record – but this seems an imperfect match to the scope of subfield $3. The flawed suitability of subfield $3 is made most clear in the wording used to define its scope within the 563 field, for bindings: “Portion of the binding that is described in the field.”

This leaves me with little faith that subfield $3 can serve as a machine actionable means to match copy-specific data in a bib record with its related copy entity – for now, a Holdings record; someday, an Item entity – when subfield $3 may also be used to denote the portion of a manifestation to which data applies. I have doubts that it can effectively serve both functions.

Should we explore a new subfield? Are there any left? Or modify $5 to include institution and copy identifier?

Francis

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

YALE CENTER FOR BRITISH ART REOPENS
The Center will reopen<http://britishart.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Exhibition%20Press%20Releases/Overview%20Press%20Release%281%29.pdf> on May 11, 2016.

BUILDING CONSERVATION PROJECT
The Center is currently closed for building conservation<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bit.ly_1qAAcGv&d=AwMF-Q&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=6NsVdZEESTdegHN3eSmGrE_-3euko22dM4BsGgzY_UU&s=nVw6SekPrTk8gooNg28QNdHmwQ6_ilz8iuhgvSO8i7s&e=>. Please e-mail the Reference Library<mailto:ycba.reference at yale.edu> and the Study Room<mailto:ycba.studyroom at yale.edu> to request special appointments, which will be accommodated on a limited basis, contingent upon the construction schedule.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20160114/ca483465/attachment-0001.html>