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

[Matthew C. Haugen]

We code the records type=t and BLvl = m as others have described for our
individually-cataloged manuscripts, including unpublished typescript
theses/dissertations. But due to similar concerns about identification and
display of individual manuscript records in both our OPAC and staff-side
interfaces, we had been adding 245 $h [manuscript] locally. If I recall,
this was optional in AACR2 but not allowed in the LCRI. But out of fear of
losing these when OCLC announced it was going to deprecate GMDs from
records in favor of 33x fields (and there is no separate content, media, or
carrier type for manuscript), a local cheat was devised to bump them into
245 $b [manuscript] preceding any other title information so they would be
preserved and still display in the expected place.

Columbia's OPAC has changed since then, and it facets materials type=t and
BLvl = m as both Books and "Archives/Manuscripts."

Also, DCRM(MSS) is now available for use, which provides instructions for
including material type in the title area (245 $k). I think our $h
manuscripts were moved by global update to $b years ago, so probably that
can be done again, as long as display etc. works out similarly in $k.

I also have been recording production method (RDA 3.9) manuscript,
typescript, etc. in 340 $d in our MSS records too, though I don't think it
gets used in our display or indexing at all.

Matt

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu>
wrote:

> Thank you Christine and Deborah.
>
>
>
> I’m especially keen to hear from anyone using a flavor of WebVoyage as
> public catalog. If your interface includes a limit or facet corresponding
> to record type ‘t’, how do you label it?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Deborah J. Leslie
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 01, 2017 7:35 PM
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] MARC coding (leader) for single-item manuscripts
>
>
>
> 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 <(202)%20675-0369> | orcid.org 0000-0001-5848-5467
>
>
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
> <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>
> 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
>



-- 

-- 
Matthew C. Haugen
Rare Book Cataloger
102 Butler Library
Columbia University Libraries
E-mail: matthew.haugen at columbia.edu
Phone: 212-851-2451
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20170602/115d5db2/attachment.html>