[DCRM-L] MARC 561 and 562

Thu Jul 14 03:19:17 MDT 2022

Dear Francis,

We place copy-specific information in the holdings record.  We use the 561 for all information about identifiable former owners/annotators, e.g. for bookplates, library stamps, inscriptions that identify the inscriber, etc. If there are annotations in the book and we know by whom they are, we mention them in a 561 field. If there are annotations but we have no idea who wrote them, we mention them in a 562 note. We also mention more general copy-specific information in the 562, e.g. when pages are misbound, when the copy is part of a limited edition and individually numbered, when the copy is interleaved or when it's of a certain state, etc.
We record imperfections, e.g. missing pages, missing plates, etc., in a 852$q sub-field in the holdings record.

Kind regards,
Iris

------------------------------------------------------
Iris O'Brien
Early Printed Collections Cataloguing and Processing Manager
The British Library
St Pancras
96 Euston Road
London
NW1 2DB
E-mail: iris.obrien at bl.uk<mailto:iris.obrien at bl.uk>

From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> On Behalf Of Karen Attar
Sent: 14 July 2022 09:29
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] MARC 561 and 562

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<mailto: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<mailto: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://gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.loc.gov%2Fmarc%2Fbibliographic%2Fbd562.html&data=05%7C01%7C%7C8a8f68f3f0964af7f52408da6572e8e1%7C21a44cb7f9c34f009afabd1e8e88bcd9%7C0%7C0%7C637933841462106255%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ckQ52IVHjT3WeMq7l8RkYkadf9w301P0lSZQivPAwlg%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://gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbritishart.yale.edu%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C8a8f68f3f0964af7f52408da6572e8e1%7C21a44cb7f9c34f009afabd1e8e88bcd9%7C0%7C0%7C637933841462262491%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=x5QfEFKKiW%2BQbH7Sy01w6dT4rsB1lK3kKmZIBYHvcVc%3D&reserved=0>

******************************************************************************************************************
Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk<http://www.bl.uk/>
The British Library's latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html<http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html>
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook<http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook>
The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
*****************************************************************************************************************
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the postmaster at bl.uk<mailto:postmaster at bl.uk> : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
*****************************************************************************************************************
Think before you print
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20220714/9fcf0111/attachment-0001.htm>