[DCRM-L] Source of title in 588?

[Matthew C. Haugen]

Hi,

I am in favor of including more of this sort of data, not just for serials.
It seems like RDA is also moving toward being more explicit about data
provenance. 588 first indicator 0 seems appropriate, based on the MARC
format documentation. Statements like "Title from title page" or "Title
devised" may seem superfluous or obvious to some of us and in some cases.
But, as our standards change, it's not always obvious to users or other
catalogers what the implied or preferred source of that information is (or
was at the time of cataloging). We also encounter copy-specific
imperfections, binding variants, etc. that could affect the source of data;
perhaps use of 588 $5 might be appropriate for those sorts of statements.

And, increasingly during this period of remote work, I find it useful
to indicate specifically if/when other parts of the record were based on a
surrogate or other data source, such as "Description based on printed
catalog card" or "Item cataloged from digital facsimile." We have used 588
in this fashion for some non-serial records created in this way.

Though, 588 notes do not currently display in "Patron view" in Columbia's
CLIO catalog; only in MARC view, including for the more common serials
application of the field.  Offhand, I think that might be okay to keep it
that way, as some of this sort of meta-metadata information is probably
pretty in the weeds for many end users, but can be found under MARC view
for anyone who's really interested.

Matt

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 3:08 PM Cawelti, Andrea <cawelti at fas.harvard.edu>
wrote:

> Greetings, fellow catalogers, I recently heard a recommendation to use the
> 588 field for notes along the lines of “Title supplied by cataloger,” a
> common note in special collections cataloging. It would be useful to have a
> specific 500 note for this kind of information, but I was under the
> impression in the 588 was only for serials use. Do folks think this field
> is appropriate for graphics, collections, monographs, etc., without
> indicators? I have asked among music colleagues on the Music OCLC Users’
> Group, and received a resounding yes. Is anyone here using the 588 for this
> kind of note? Had any experiences with the note not displaying in local
> catalogs, etc.? What have you learned if you are using this note, that you
> think others should know?
>
> Thoughts/complaints/recriminations?
>
> Thank you for your guidance, andrea
>
>  --
>
> Andrea Cawelti (Ms.)
> Ward Music Cataloger
> Houghton Library
> Harvard University
> Cambridge, MA  02138
>
> Phone: (617) 998-5259
> FAX: (617) 495-1376
> E-mail: cawelti at fas.harvard.edu
>
>
>


-- 
Matthew C. Haugen
Rare Book Cataloger | Columbia University Libraries
matthew.haugen at columbia.edu | 212-851-2451 | he/him/his
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20200722/64b5c1dc/attachment.html>