[DCRM-L] MARC 561 and 562

[Karen Attar]

Dear all,

What is the rationale of dividing provenance information between two fields? How does it help the reader? On our side, what are the issues of library management systems that dictate its advisability?

It springs to my mind that the main purpose to divide between two fields would be for information that is part of the history of how readers have interacted with a book but don't allow us to identify the reader - e.g. "Copy is extensively annotated in a seventeenth-century hand"; "Light pencilled marginal markings and underlinings in the preface": the kind of thing some of us have oscillated between defining as provenance and defining as "other copy-specific", which is not at issue here.

Extra copy-specific information, like imperfections, "bound with" notes, and an edition number remain well apart. If we're dividing information into separate fields, would it make more sense to divide the types the information that go into a 590?

I hope this doesn't come across as challenging. It isn't meant to be: it's intended as an impetus to think, and a desire to know.

Karen

Dr Karen Attar
Curator of Rare Books and University Art
Senate House Library, University of London
Senate House
Malet St
London WC1E 7HU

From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> On Behalf Of Lapka, Francis
Sent: 13 July 2022 18:16
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: [DCRM-L] MARC 561 and 562

Hi all. As my repository considers application of standardized fields for provenance notes (abandoning 590s), I'm pondering the distinction between MARC fields 561 and 562. I wonder if the following summary is correct:


  1.  MARC 561 = RDA and DCRMR's custodial history of item. It does not include reference to markings/evidence. Example, from DCRMR:

     *   Library copy: Part of King George III's Library. Donated to the nation by King George IV (1762-1830)



  1.  MARC 562 = RDA and DCRMR's modification of item. It includes reference to markings/evidence. Example, from DCRMR:

     *   Library copy bears stamps and label of St. Ignatius College; signature on flyleaf of N. Blagdon, dated 1813.

The MARC-RDA pairing is based on RDA's element reference, but I feel uncertainty because I can't remember seeing examples of provenance markings (bookplates, autographs, and so on) in field 562, and the MARC guidance<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.loc.gov%2Fmarc%2Fbibliographic%2Fbd562.html&data=05%7C01%7CKaren.Attar%40london.ac.uk%7Cff4c052a82c04f73660608da64f3570e%7C185280ba7a0042ea940819eafd13552e%7C0%7C0%7C637933293565282097%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ttqeOUsY5g6hbrhImOihID0gDABYSlZLErASgsulG5M%3D&reserved=0> isn't as clear as I'd like.

Is this 561 versus 562 distinction correct? If so, is it useful? Do other repositories use the two fields in this manner?

Thanks,
Francis



Francis Lapka
Senior Catalog Librarian
Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts
Yale Center for British Art
203-432-9672  *  britishart.yale.edu<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbritishart.yale.edu%2F&data=05%7C01%7CKaren.Attar%40london.ac.uk%7Cff4c052a82c04f73660608da64f3570e%7C185280ba7a0042ea940819eafd13552e%7C0%7C0%7C637933293565282097%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=IKu9xBFXmmrvi1RnhTaKIpWx6wMqpnpgZIL7mZPtCE0%3D&reserved=0>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20220714/0f395405/attachment.htm>