[DCRM-L] MARC 561 and 562

Thu Jul 14 09:52:23 MDT 2022

Provenance data is also split between immediate source of acquisition
(DCRMR 9.425) and ownership/custodial history (DCRMR 9.42) which are
encoded in separate MARC fields 541 and 561, so I could see the case for
using MARC 562 for provenance evidence (DCRMR 9.41.33). On the other hand,
it may sometimes be difficult for catalogers to make these distinctions,
and I sometimes wonder how useful such distinctions are for users too.

Though there isn't a perfect one-to-one fit in MARC for every
DCRMR element, I agree with others that the 562 field also would appear to
be appropriate for other modifications to the item (DCRMR 9.41), notes on
extent or dimensions of item (DCRM 9.43 and 9.44), as well as other
item-specific details that aren't necessarily "modifications" like
watermarks, variant states, limited edition numbers, manufacture errors,
etc., with the exception of DCRM 9.45 and MARC 501 for bound-withs, and
DCRM 9.41.35 and MARC 563 for bindings.

In Columbia's catalog, a substantial amount of item-level data is found in
500 $5 or 590 fields following earlier practice. For that reason and as
well as the configuration of our ILS and our OPAC, the appeal of searches
limited to a specific MARC tag is somewhat limited to me at the moment. But
in addition to searching considerations, there's also the question of
display, labels, and sorting in the OPAC. We haven't made much use of 562
but as far as I know it doesn't even display in our OPAC, and many of the
other specific MARC tags that do display just end up lumped together in a
general "notes" section in the OPAC display. Of course, much of this could
be reconfigured if we wanted to, but even though our current implementation
doesn't make much use of the more precise MARC tagging for searching and
display, I'm still in favor of using the more precise MARC tags, for the
benefit of more precise mapping in and out of other encoding schema like
BIBFRAME, etc., or in and out of other data stores and portals like
ArchiveSpace, etc. that currently interact with our MARC data or might do
so in the future.

Matthew

On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 5:19 AM O'Brien, Iris <Iris.OBrien at bl.uk> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *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> *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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.loc.gov-252Fmarc-252Fbibliographic-252Fbd562.html-26data-3D05-257C01-257C-257C8a8f68f3f0964af7f52408da6572e8e1-257C21a44cb7f9c34f009afabd1e8e88bcd9-257C0-257C0-257C637933841462106255-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C3000-257C-257C-257C-26sdata-3DckQ52IVHjT3WeMq7l8RkYkadf9w301P0lSZQivPAwlg-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFAg&c=009klHSCxuh5AI1vNQzSO0KGjl4nbi2Q0M1QLJX9BeE&r=bqvMzn5svMdVdLTynbtuuiSmNU5dU2X2C8ih_Su0ZW4&m=Tmr26F-36ZCqGoDxLUAKRYTfb-2b_p_n7LGbHGvobN8QDx1fCzcFGllejBwO7Ew5&s=3868XRx0vsqXdvuAO63E6k-G1jOj6F_tg6tS_6UCRvQ&e=>
> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fbritishart.yale.edu-252F-26data-3D05-257C01-257C-257C8a8f68f3f0964af7f52408da6572e8e1-257C21a44cb7f9c34f009afabd1e8e88bcd9-257C0-257C0-257C637933841462262491-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C3000-257C-257C-257C-26sdata-3Dx5QfEFKKiW-252BQbH7Sy01w6dT4rsB1lK3kKmZIBYHvcVc-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFAg&c=009klHSCxuh5AI1vNQzSO0KGjl4nbi2Q0M1QLJX9BeE&r=bqvMzn5svMdVdLTynbtuuiSmNU5dU2X2C8ih_Su0ZW4&m=Tmr26F-36ZCqGoDxLUAKRYTfb-2b_p_n7LGbHGvobN8QDx1fCzcFGllejBwO7Ew5&s=MAQFCNNqKBMQQLBXC4teVTEodiXOL_J_8aV2U8Ud9bY&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ******************************************************************************************************************
> Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.bl.uk_&d=DwMFAg&c=009klHSCxuh5AI1vNQzSO0KGjl4nbi2Q0M1QLJX9BeE&r=bqvMzn5svMdVdLTynbtuuiSmNU5dU2X2C8ih_Su0ZW4&m=Tmr26F-36ZCqGoDxLUAKRYTfb-2b_p_n7LGbHGvobN8QDx1fCzcFGllejBwO7Ew5&s=qlfByNFcGlJsxmZhWb8v6hvlWZUr3-K3mCe_gezMKQA&e=>
> The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts :
> www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.bl.uk_aboutus_annrep_index.html&d=DwMFAg&c=009klHSCxuh5AI1vNQzSO0KGjl4nbi2Q0M1QLJX9BeE&r=bqvMzn5svMdVdLTynbtuuiSmNU5dU2X2C8ih_Su0ZW4&m=Tmr26F-36ZCqGoDxLUAKRYTfb-2b_p_n7LGbHGvobN8QDx1fCzcFGllejBwO7Ew5&s=h0pbpWOlv5CK-0koYGbr5EORx4447HeRe3vRbB3pc7k&e=>
> Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book.
> www.bl.uk/adoptabook
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.bl.uk_adoptabook&d=DwMFAg&c=009klHSCxuh5AI1vNQzSO0KGjl4nbi2Q0M1QLJX9BeE&r=bqvMzn5svMdVdLTynbtuuiSmNU5dU2X2C8ih_Su0ZW4&m=Tmr26F-36ZCqGoDxLUAKRYTfb-2b_p_n7LGbHGvobN8QDx1fCzcFGllejBwO7Ew5&s=IkPgMrvkL-PWPB7xIQAzpSdyv1z9VC4Tz4IgwQqp5fk&e=>
> 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 : 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
>

-- 
Matthew C. Haugen
Rare Book Cataloger | Columbia University Libraries
matthew.haugen at columbia.edu | 212-851-2451 | he/him or they/them
<https://universitylife.columbia.edu/pronouns>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20220714/aa62e695/attachment-0001.htm>