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

[Randy Smith]

Here at the Missouri Botanical Garden library, we do add links to other
institutions' copies of works that we have (we do try to vet the digitized
copy to make sure it actually is the same edition as ours). Many of our
patrons and staff are located around the globe and are unable to physically
be in the library. For them, needing to access the *information* in the
text is of highest priority. Thus when they need to search for a specific
work, they can go to our OPAC and (hopefully) find the work they are
seeking, which may link to a digitized version which will expedite their
research. Otherwise, they would have to wait until they could travel to a
location that has a physical copy of the work before being able to inspect
or spend more time searching the internet for other digitized copies.
However, I can see the other side of the argument. Several of our rare
books are annotated by various historic persons. If the bib record link
goes to a volume digitized elsewhere that lacks the annotations, the patron
could assume that the annotations were very minimal. Additionally, if the
local bib record noted that the annotations were by person A, yet linked
another institution's digitized copy that happened to be annotated by
person B, that could potentially lead to some confusion for the patron.
To help alleviate some of this confusion, the link always states the
institution of the digitized copy (similar to what Francis noted).
Additionally, we often will link to multiple iterations of the same work as
sometimes one institution's scans are pitifully poor, or the website
interface is being persnickety, etc.
Our decision to do this is from direct positive feedback from our patrons.
So far (and we've been adding links to our local records for about 12
years), we've received appreciation for the links and (to my knowledge)
have never received a complaint.
Allison does bring up a salient point regarding the decision of what to
digitize from a collection based on what is already available. This is a
practice we do. However, (and I recently showed this to Deborah and Kate
regarding a work by Linnaeus), having available multiple digitized copies
of a work can elucidate such things as the existence of concealed editions.

Best,
Randy
Peter H. Raven Library
Missouri Botanical Garden


On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Allison Jai O'Dell <ajodell at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20161103/be629d80/attachment.html>