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

[Noble, Richard]

I do sometimes retain or provide 856 links, always identifying the copy as
a copy (and not, say, as a digitization of the edition), when aspects of
the copy have been adduced as evidence in identifying my copy--and
potentially many other copies--as different, but still copies of the same
manifestation. It is essential *not* to present a copy as exemplary of
*all* copies
in this negotiation of "the same, but different"/"different, but the same".

Whether an 856 link is the best way to make this reference is open to
question. In some cases it really is necessary to  *look* at a given copy,
as a way to avoid composition of a tedious, mind-bendingly detailed
mini-treatise in the record, disguised as a 500 note. In some cases it's
better to refer to links available in e.g. the *Gesamtkatalog* or the
*Bayerische
Staatsbibliothek Inkunabelkatalog*, and depend on them to maintain url's.

In general we're better off with principled but pragmatic systems approach
to these questions--and I suppose that's exactly what this discussion is
trying to arrive at. My thanks to all.

RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
<Richard_Noble at Br <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Randy Smith <rns1963 at frontiernet.net> wrote:

> 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/20161103/9a30b4a0/attachment.html>