[DCRM-L] Potential addition of $i to record source of title for the 245?

[Lapka, Francis]

Hi Erin.

I see the appeal in your suggestion. If there is consensus for such a change, is it possible that there'd be benefit to having a parallel mechanism available in other transcribed fields (250, 26x, 490)? I haven't thought it through.

I also wonder if the scope of your suggestion overlaps (in part, at least) with the following MARC discussion paper on the agenda for Midwinter:

MARC DISCUSSION PAPER NO. 2021-DP06
Recording Data Provenance in the MARC 21 Formats
https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2021/2021-dp06.html


Francis



From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> On Behalf Of Erin Blake
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 4:55 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: [DCRM-L] Potential addition of $i to record source of title for the 245?

What do people think about potentially authorization of $i to record the "source of title" in the 245?

The idea came up over the weekend, when a friend and I were talking about how we routinely use the 246$i "Introductory text" subfield to show "source of title" for variant titles of graphic material, and she wondered about advocating that $i be extended for use in the 245, not just the 246. This came up in the context of balancing how a resource "describes itself" with being culturally respectful when a transcribed title is disrespectful.

Here's a snippet from the Folger's OPAC as an example of how we use 246 for 'source of title' with prints:
[image.png]
Per DCRM(G) there's always a 500$a giving source of title, and per Folger practice, we always include a 246 for the title from a standard reference source, if applicable (shown here with the introductory text "Hollstein title:" -- the record's 510 gives the full reference for Hollstein).

Catalogers know that the lack of square brackets in the 245 means it's a transcribed title, but patrons sometimes don't. This is especially the case with scholars accustomed to seeing the same prints in museums' catalogs, where transcribed titles are not the norm.

Cataloging Cultural Objects (CCO) handles this with a "Title Type" element, see p. 50: "for example, repository title, inscribed title, creator's title, descriptive title."

Linking source of title to the 245 is also a concern when it comes to future-proofing data for migration: even when there is a bracketed title, its source is given in a free text 500$a, not in a structure that would let us keep "title" and "title source" paired, the way they are in the 246.

Thoughts?

Erin.

______________________
Erin Blake, Ph.D.  |  Senior Cataloger  |  Folger Shakespeare Library  |  201 E. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC, 20003  |  eblake at folger.edu<mailto:eblake at folger.edu>  |  www.folger.edu<https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fprotect-us.mimecast.com%2Fs%2F-t5RCjRgpBtArRXC7R7_2%3Fdomain%3Durldefense.com&data=04%7C01%7Cfrancis.lapka%40yale.edu%7C30950c63e1a94142640308d8b67ba672%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637459989491586421%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=2gry5zJnYgcrt2g5vMe2PAgBr%2FGDbmu7npeeSzuepuY%3D&reserved=0>   |  Pronouns: she/her/hers

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20210112/e5edbe90/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 45680 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20210112/e5edbe90/attachment-0001.png>