[DCRM-L] MARC coding (leader) for single-item manuscripts

[Deborah J. Leslie]

We do the same. Manuscripts are coded type of record (LDR 06) 't', and nature of contents (008/24-27) 'm'.

Deborah J. Leslie, MA, MLS | Senior Cataloger, Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu | 201 East Capitol Street, S.E. | Washington, DC 20003 | 202.675-0369 | orcid.org 0000-0001-5848-5467

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Christine DeZelar-Tiedman
Sent: Thursday, 01 June, 2017 17:29
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] MARC coding (leader) for single-item manuscripts

We use 't' for manuscripts. In addition to the methods you've described, they can be distinguished from theses and dissertations in our catalog (Alma/Primo) by giving them a separate material type. There are separate material types for Manuscripts and Theses, which can be used as search limiters in the Advanced Search options.

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>> wrote:

I'm keen to hear from list subscribers on local practices for coding of the MARC leader when cataloging single-item textual manuscripts (letters, diaries, etc.).



Following MARC guidance, the decision ought to be simple:

  *   06 type of record = t : manuscript language material
  *   07 bibliographic level = m : monograph / item

Is everyone applying these codes for such material?

We (Yale) are reluctant to use code "t" for type of record, for fear that it will conflate such manuscripts with dissertations and theses (which are also coded "t") in our public catalog. Does your public catalog give you a mechanism to distinguish such manuscripts from theses? I recognize that the distinction ought to be possible based on the "Nature of contents" code in the 008 fixed field -- where we can flag theses with code "m" -- but is this a distinction that's made in any OPACs?

There's also a temptation here to code single-item manuscripts with record type "p" (mixed materials). This is cheating, but it allows an OPAC facet or search limit for archives/manuscripts to be based on a single fixed field value. *But* it appears that OCLC will not accept records coded "p" and "m"; this is a major drawback, if true.

As a slave to pragmatism, one begins to consider coding the records "p" and "c" (bibliographic level = collection), until a more elegant solution comes along (post-MARC?).

Suggestions welcome.

Francis







--
Christine DeZelar-Tiedman
Metadata and Emerging Technologies Librarian
University of Minnesota Libraries
160 Wilson Library                      (612) 625-0381 PH
309 19th Ave. S.                        (612) 625-3428 FAX
Minneapolis, MN 55455               dezel002 at umn.edu<mailto:dezel002 at umn.edu>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20170601/cd72bbd1/attachment-0001.html>