[DCRM-L] MARC 561 and 562

Wed Jul 20 08:23:23 MDT 2022

My thanks to all for your illuminating replies. Assuming these are representative, it appears there's a preference for field 561 for all provenance notes, regardless of whether the note refers to evidence in the resource. I see the pragmatism in that approach, even though it seems mis-aligned with DCRMR's indirect suggestion that field 562 is the more appropriate field for evidence-based provenance data.

I'd like to ask a follow-up question. At my institution, almost all copy-specific notes (on provenance, imperfections, copy-specific numberings, bindings, etc.) for print resources are recorded in field 590 of the Bib record. More often than not, provenance info in our 590s refers to material evidence. If we'd like to execute an automated or semi-automated batch conversion of our 590s to a more standardized field in the Holdings record, it appears that 561 and 562 are the two best candidates. I propose that 562 may be the better option because it is scoped to include provenance markings and other copy-specific details that aren't about provenance. Do others agree? Are there other options to consider (bearing in mind that we wouldn't have time to manually review every 590)?

Thanks again,
Francis

From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> On Behalf Of Matthew C. Haugen
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2022 11:52 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] MARC 561 and 562

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<mailto: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<mailto:iris.obrien at bl.uk>

From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-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%26d%3DDwMFAg%26c%3D009klHSCxuh5AI1vNQzSO0KGjl4nbi2Q0M1QLJX9BeE%26r%3DbqvMzn5svMdVdLTynbtuuiSmNU5dU2X2C8ih_Su0ZW4%26m%3DTmr26F-36ZCqGoDxLUAKRYTfb-2b_p_n7LGbHGvobN8QDx1fCzcFGllejBwO7Ew5%26s%3D3868XRx0vsqXdvuAO63E6k-G1jOj6F_tg6tS_6UCRvQ%26e%3D&data=05%7C01%7Cfrancis.lapka%40yale.edu%7C086127646a434496008908da65b11429%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637934108478339312%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xzzWKLN326T1TWbZDs85X%2F8LLqpGY3l7yUnJ7%2FF2Wps%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://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-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%26d%3DDwMFAg%26c%3D009klHSCxuh5AI1vNQzSO0KGjl4nbi2Q0M1QLJX9BeE%26r%3DbqvMzn5svMdVdLTynbtuuiSmNU5dU2X2C8ih_Su0ZW4%26m%3DTmr26F-36ZCqGoDxLUAKRYTfb-2b_p_n7LGbHGvobN8QDx1fCzcFGllejBwO7Ew5%26s%3DMAQFCNNqKBMQQLBXC4teVTEodiXOL_J_8aV2U8Ud9bY%26e%3D&data=05%7C01%7Cfrancis.lapka%40yale.edu%7C086127646a434496008908da65b11429%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637934108478339312%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2GEOVEZDQgYaUM0WR2bzfYfE2ruLicwn6Vhk0IR68Fg%3D&reserved=0>

******************************************************************************************************************
Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk<https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__www.bl.uk_%26d%3DDwMFAg%26c%3D009klHSCxuh5AI1vNQzSO0KGjl4nbi2Q0M1QLJX9BeE%26r%3DbqvMzn5svMdVdLTynbtuuiSmNU5dU2X2C8ih_Su0ZW4%26m%3DTmr26F-36ZCqGoDxLUAKRYTfb-2b_p_n7LGbHGvobN8QDx1fCzcFGllejBwO7Ew5%26s%3DqlfByNFcGlJsxmZhWb8v6hvlWZUr3-K3mCe_gezMKQA%26e%3D&data=05%7C01%7Cfrancis.lapka%40yale.edu%7C086127646a434496008908da65b11429%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637934108478339312%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=88Gi0GR7QM5VWYiL7ilrZg66bqGUbQrhP5odvfOEq10%3D&reserved=0>
The British Library's latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html<https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__www.bl.uk_aboutus_annrep_index.html%26d%3DDwMFAg%26c%3D009klHSCxuh5AI1vNQzSO0KGjl4nbi2Q0M1QLJX9BeE%26r%3DbqvMzn5svMdVdLTynbtuuiSmNU5dU2X2C8ih_Su0ZW4%26m%3DTmr26F-36ZCqGoDxLUAKRYTfb-2b_p_n7LGbHGvobN8QDx1fCzcFGllejBwO7Ew5%26s%3Dh0pbpWOlv5CK-0koYGbr5EORx4447HeRe3vRbB3pc7k%26e%3D&data=05%7C01%7Cfrancis.lapka%40yale.edu%7C086127646a434496008908da65b11429%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637934108478339312%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=JGwK6eSsQnyKvwGCOrq3bpM2cy2FpSnxB8jAvnMTQBs%3D&reserved=0>
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook<https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__www.bl.uk_adoptabook%26d%3DDwMFAg%26c%3D009klHSCxuh5AI1vNQzSO0KGjl4nbi2Q0M1QLJX9BeE%26r%3DbqvMzn5svMdVdLTynbtuuiSmNU5dU2X2C8ih_Su0ZW4%26m%3DTmr26F-36ZCqGoDxLUAKRYTfb-2b_p_n7LGbHGvobN8QDx1fCzcFGllejBwO7Ew5%26s%3DIkPgMrvkL-PWPB7xIQAzpSdyv1z9VC4Tz4IgwQqp5fk%26e%3D&data=05%7C01%7Cfrancis.lapka%40yale.edu%7C086127646a434496008908da65b11429%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637934108478339312%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yziPXvO6Mx3no0ZG1tUpP6FV%2F2rFXlwnJpEsoDCKN9w%3D&reserved=0>
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

--
Matthew C. Haugen
Rare Book Cataloger | Columbia University Libraries
matthew.haugen at columbia.edu<mailto:matthew.haugen at columbia.edu> | 212-851-2451 | he/him or they/them<https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Funiversitylife.columbia.edu%2Fpronouns&data=05%7C01%7Cfrancis.lapka%40yale.edu%7C086127646a434496008908da65b11429%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637934108478339312%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0f0lmZdNNfbTIprUGRKHOXUVe%2BTCV338JhuU4aJfJek%3D&reserved=0>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20220720/42662f07/attachment-0001.htm>