[DCRM-L] MARC 856 and links to electronic reproductions

[Moschella, Jay]

I, too, can see the utility of either argument. However, I agree with the Beinecke policy as described by Todd.

In nearly every case, I find that non-BPL 856 links in OCLC records point to online copies that are already fairly easily findable by researchers, either in one of the several subscription databases that we provide access to, or through Hathi Trust/Google Books/Internet Archive. Therefore, I'd prefer to avoid cluttering our bib records with what usually amounts to easily available, but potentially ambiguous data.

I have also found that, with a renewed emphasis on high quality, copy-specific cataloging, our researchers seem increasingly interested in the specifics of the copies that we are describing in our records. They are, in other words, looking for digitized versions of BPL materials specifically. This last bit is only anecdotal, of course, but I find those user trends that I am able to observe to be helpful in guiding decision making.

Jay

Jay Moschella
Curator of Rare Books
Boston Public Library
700 Boylston St.
Boston, MA 02116
________________________________________
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Fell, Todd [todd.fell at yale.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 4:23 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] MARC 856 and links to electronic reproductions

Seeing as I was the “colleague” mentioned in the email below, I will reply by forwarding an explanation from one of our curators here at the Beinecke. The request to remove non-Yale 856 links from Beinecke records was made by the Director (E.C.), with all of the curators unanimously agreeing.

“I believe that linking to a generic e-version of a special collection item can do more harm than good. There are many places for students and scholars to find an e-version if that is what they are seeking.  Our catalog ought to describe our particular copy (albeit employing shared bibliographic standards), not an idealized version.  Any links ought to be to a digital version of our copy. I’d even argue that when we have multiple copies of a title, we should link the e-version to the item record rather than the bib record, but I know that will create its own set of confusions.”

I will forward more replies should I receive them. (For the record, I am in the middle on this issue; I can see the validity of both points of view).

Todd

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Lapka, Francis
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 9:52 AM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: [DCRM-L] MARC 856 and links to electronic reproductions


A brief exchange with a colleague about MARC field 856 has me wondering about community practice.



1.       If OCLC copy for a resource includes an 856 link to an openly available electronic reproduction of the same manifestation (but an electronic version not generated from the copy at your library), do you keep the link?



2.      For original cataloging, or when editing an OCLC master record, do you add an 856 field to link to an electronic reproduction, if you know of one?



3.      Should links to openly available electronic reproductions (in an 856 field) be avoided altogether, if the link is to a reproduction other than your own? If so, why?





 Francis





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>