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

[Allison Jai O'Dell]

This is an interesting discussion that I will be following closely, as
similar questions have recently arisen at U.Florida.  We're particularly
curious about workflows to add 856 links (or not) to OCLC records when
one's institution digitizes stuff.

Regarding number 3, I can think of a few use cases for keeping them, beyond
user desire to access materials quickly:
-  Could inform selection if patrons are given a preview of materials
before requesting them in the reading room.  Therefore, could reduce the
burden on reading room staff, and also help preserve materials (less
unnecessary handling).
-  Could inform our own digitization activities.  For many institutions,
step #1 in a digitization project is to see if the item has already been
digitized elsewhere -- and this step is always a hassle, since the
effective union catalogs for digitized content (DPLA, Europeana) are not
yet comprehensive.


- Allison


On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu>
wrote:

> For early printed materials, we do not provide links to images of other
> copies. Our discussion of this some years ago reflected the thinking
> expressed by Beinecke curators; even identifying which copy is digitized,
> we decided, opened the door to ambiguity or confusion; more harm than good.
>
>
> Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. | Senior Cataloger, Folger Shakespeare
> Library | djleslie at folger.edu | 202.675-0369 | 201 East Capitol St., SE,
> Washington, DC 20003 | www. folger.edu | orcid.org/0000-0001-5848-5467
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
> Behalf Of Moschella, Jay
> Sent: Wednesday, 02 November 2016 16:39
> To: DCRM Users' Group
> Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] MARC 856 and links to electronic reproductions
>
> 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>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20161102/3c7ccdcf/attachment.html>