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

[Moody, Honor M.]

Hi Francis,

Do you know if OCLC doesn’t recognizing the subtlety or if they are intentionally ignoring it?

I recently (October 3) submitted an error report to OCLC # 1656076, Autographs for freedom, when the bib didn’t show up with “Not Internet” selected, assuming the 007 was added in error.  In this case I was searching for a known item by OCLC #, so I knew it had to be there somewhere. I don’t really want to think about the number of bibs I didn’t find because “Not Microform” and “Not Internet” are the default selection in my searching.

Best,
Honor


Honor Moody
Cataloger
Schlesinger Library
Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study
3 James Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
Tel.: (617) 495-4223
Email: hmoody at radcliffe.harvard.edu

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Lapka, Francis
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 3:46 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] MARC 856 and links to electronic reproductions

Thanks to all for the variety of thoughtful perspectives.

It’s interesting that the mere presence of an 856 field leads some agencies to consider the record as mixed (print/electronic). Is it really? In the context described in this thread, the 856 is (quoting MARC): “… used to locate and access an electronic version of a non-electronic resource described in the bibliographic record or a related electronic resource.” MARC definition of second indicator “1” provides reinforcement: “… In this case, the item represented by the bibliographic record is not electronic but an electronic version is available.”

OCLC, alas, doesn’t recognize this subtlety. Presence of an 856 appears to result in a record treated as “Internet,” regardless of record coding. Any Connexion search executed with the “Not Internet” limit will exclude all records containing an 856 (gah!). This conclusion is based on limited tinkering; I’d be happy to be wrong.

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 Herring-Harrington, Lydia
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 4:16 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] MARC 856 and links to electronic reproductions

At Tufts, we do create separate records for digitized versions of our special collections material in our ILS, since it is our institutional policy not to mix print and electronic on the same record.  We also add the digitized version and relevant metadata to our institutional repository.


Lydia Herring-Harrington
Electronic Resources and Metadata Services Librarian
Tisch Library | Tufts University
(617) 627-0951
lydia.herring_harrington at tufts.edu<mailto:lydia.herring_harrington at tufts.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 Sotelo, Aislinn
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 1:53 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] MARC 856 and links to electronic reproductions

Instead of linking of other institutions’ digitized copies of works you hold by adding an 856, is anyone bringing in separate electronic resources records for digitized versions? Or does anyone’s institution make it a practice to import all HathiTrust records into your catalog, or the records that your institution has contributed? Or, does anyone’s LSP discovery layer search the HathiTrust catalog and integrate search results in your display?

Aislinn Sotelo
Director of Metadata Services
The Library | University of California, San Diego
t 858-534-6766 | e asotelo at ucsd.edu<mailto:asotelo at ucsd.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 Fell, Todd
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 7:57 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] MARC 856 and links to electronic reproductions

Just to clarify: “idealized” was a term used by the curator, not me.

Todd

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 Noble, Richard
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 10:25 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] MARC 856 and links to electronic reproductions


On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Fell, Todd <todd.fell at yale.edu<mailto:todd.fell at yale.edu>> wrote:
Our catalog ought to describe our particular copy (albeit employing shared bibliographic standards), not an idealized version.

I hope it remains understood that the proper basis for description of a particular copy is "ideal copy" description--not, I should emphasize, "idealized version", whatever we might take that to mean.

"Ideal copy"--a descriptive category, not a Platonic entity--was an unfortunate choice of term to designate all those elements of a body of books that evidence their membership in nested sets called edition, issue (the basic unit of ideal copy description, and what we basically mean by "manifestation") and state, the last comprising isolated variations among copies that do not give rise to separate classification.

In ISBD(A) ideal copy description was mandated as the basic goal of "antiquarian" cataloging, which requires conscious assessment, based on more or less research as the situation warrants or allows, to establish that any one copy is subsumed under a given manifestation, which can also mean recording variants that correspond to states, in order not to prevent the creation of false manifestations. This goal is stated, in other words, in DCRM(B) Introduction, III.1.1. (perhaps wisely avoiding the word "ideal").

OCLC master records are manifestation records, and those of us who tag them dcrmb need to be aware at all times of those things which do belong in the "master record", and those which do not. This goes beyond "shared bibliographic standards", which are simply devices to support the application of the underlying principles, and may need the occasional twist or bend to help us reach the goal.

This may be an over-reaction--but my teaching experience has always been that "ideal" and "idealized" (or "perfect" or "actually good, unlike this depressing example of the printer's art") are too commonly mixed up,  and have to be directly addressed again and again.

RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
<Richard_Noble at Br<mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__own.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=Np9Dv-N85TxuwGXDqbzvM-I_B1c6fwLXrzKWWE4fD3I&m=uXO0R-oRDa6lu0uS_VHErmplWc2jLduywqEWQyjSoJE&s=fQITA_GOLSYJS5ok2v96Np07S6agzDZVHHdkDJviTQo&e=>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20161104/c6247501/attachment-0001.html>