[DCRM-L] Recording digitized books (Michael Beer)

Mon Mar 26 23:53:31 MDT 2018

Hello Michael,

in our previous cataloguing system we copied the record for the original version in a new record for the digitized version. These records were converted to our LMS, in VUMarc (based on Marc21)
We've always treated the digitized version as a copy of an Item not a manifestation. So when 2 copies of the same title were digitized, each would get their own digitized version-record.

We kept the original impressum and year of publication (Michael's option 2), and added fields for the Reproduction data - these additional fields were converted to Marcfield 533 in our LMS: 
	Place+Name of the Publisher of the reproduction, [>533 $b
	Year of Reproduction, [>533 $d
	Characteristics of the reproduction (f.i. pdf) [>533 $c
	Place+Name of the Manufacturer of the reproductoon [>533 $n
	Note about the reproduction 	[>533 $n
	Location of the original	[>533 $n

Our records were migrated to Worldcat from the cataloguing system, and not from our LMS, and unfortunately all of these additional data were lost in translation; however, Location of the original was converted  to 535.  (We may have to set up a recovery operation for the other data)

Since migrating to Worldcat we haven't had occasion to create any records for our own digitized material yet. So, following this discussion with great interest!

greetings,
Anneke Houtkamp
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, NL
-----------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:29:11 +0000
From: Robert Maxwell <robert_maxwell at byu.edu>
To: "DCRM Users' Group" <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Recording digitized books
Message-ID: <bbb6f7e2594a49f482333c91b25f9266 at MB7.byu.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Most U.S. libraries are following the PCC "Provider Neutral" guidelines for cataloging digitized books which, as you note, do not follow RDA for the publication information.

https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/scs/documents/PCC-PN-guidelines.html

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

-----Original Message-----
From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> On Behalf Of Michael Beer
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 8:58 AM
To: DCRM-List <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: [DCRM-L] Recording digitized books

Hi everybody,

I'm a new member on the list, working at the Bavarian State Library in Munich, Germany, and I would like to ask a question regarding the cataloging of digitized books.

The German libraries are reviewing their practice of cataloging digitized resources. 
Some German libraries have problems with the RDA-rules for digitized books, especially regarding the publication statement. They would prefer the "old" practice of also recording the publication statement of the original resource in the record for the digitization.

Before deciding on this topic we would be very interested to know how other communities treat digitized books, especially Anglo-American libraries. 

Looking at various catalogs I got the impression that there are two different ways of recording digitizations.

1. No record for the digitization is created. Some information (URL etc.) for the digitization are added to the record of the printed book.

2. A separate record for the digitized resource is produced whose publication statement is the same as the original resource.

I hardly could find separate records with an edition statement following RDA (e.g. year of digitization is recorded as year of publication)

Can your confirm this, or did I get a wrong impression? Francis Lapka, who recommended this list for my question, already provided me with useful information about the practice at Yale but I would be most grateful if I could get further information on the practice of other libraries in that respect.

Best, 
Michael 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Beer
Bayerische Staatsbibliothek
Abt. Bestandsentwicklung und Erschlie?ung 1
Stabsreferat Formalerschlie?ung
Ludwigstr. 16
80539 M?nchen

Mail: Michael.Beer at bsb-muenchen.de

Tel.: +4989/28638-2747
Fax: +4989/28638-2309

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:12:54 +0000
From: "Mascaro, Michelle" <mmascaro at ucsd.edu>
To: "dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu" <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: [DCRM-L] RBMS PS review Q4: Extent of text
Message-ID:
	<DM5PR0401MB360862F3DDA522006593DA33ACAD0 at DM5PR0401MB3608.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I would like to resume discussions of areas where the draft RBMS Policy Statements significantly differs from RDA or DCRM.  The next topic of discussion is extent, specifically extent of text.

Recording unnumbered pages or leaves

For extent of text, the draft policy statement differ from RDA and specify to bracket sequences of the unnumbered pages/leaves (as we did in DCRM and AACR2) versus spelling out unnumbered pages/leaves (as specified in RDA).  (E.g., [8], 260, [2] pages, NOT 8 unnumbered pages, 260 pages, 2 unnumbered pages). The RBMS PS do specify to follow RDA and not abbreviate "pages."  This is also the rare materials approach that is currently followed in the BIBCO Standard Record (BSR).   The rationale for differing from RDA is that rare print materials often have complicated pagination/foliation, and since it is important to record every page/leaf in the item, extent statements can get too unwieldly following RDA conventions.

Recording full sequences of pagination/foliation in a note when pagination/foliation is particularly complex

The RBMS PS (like DCRM(B)) specify that catalogers should generally record full pagination sequences and not employ one of RDA's methods for summarizing complicated pagination (e.g., 1024 pages in various pagings).  One change that the RBMS PS have made from DCRM(B) is if you are electing to summarize complicated pagination/foliation sequences in the extent statement, the option to record the full pagination/foliation sequences in a note has been eliminated (see DCRM(B) 5B6.6 and RDA 3.5.5.8).  The rationale for this change is that with RDA's granular structure, we want sequences of pagination/foliation to be consistently recorded in the extent element and not some times in a note.  For the same reasons, the RBMS PS dropped the option for recording the individual volume pagination of multi-volume sets without continuous pagination in a note (see DCRM(B) 5B18 and RDA 3.4.5.18).  RDA proper has an optional additional that pagination of individual volumes may be recorded in par!
 enthesis 
 after the number of volumes in the extent element (e.g., 3 volumes (xx, 202; xx, 203-514; xxi, [1], 515-800 pages), and there is currently no RBMS PS either encouraging or discouraging the application of this option, leaving the decision up to cataloger's judgment.  There was some question among the examples editors whether a PS should be added saying to generally record the pagination of individual volumes, and I am interested in further community feedback.

Please respond to the list with your thoughts.  For further context a draft of the full RBMS PS to RDA 3.4.5 is attached.  (Nota bene! The examples in this section are still being polished.)  In two weeks, I plan to post a couple new questions related to recording the extents of plates.

Best,

Michelle Mascaro, RBMS PS Editor
Head, Special Collections Metadata
University of California, San Diego
(858) 534-6759
mmascaro at ucsd.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20180326/110f9198/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 3. 4.5 _ Extent of Text -- draft.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 197511 bytes
Desc: 3. 4.5 _ Extent of Text -- draft.pdf
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20180326/110f9198/attachment.pdf>

End of DCRM-L Digest, Vol 145, Issue 20
***************************************