[DCRM-L] MARC discussion papers 2022-DP10 and 11

[Matthew C. Haugen]

Hello all,

I had written up some comments about two other MARC discussion papers, DP10
and DP11, that I was planning to share by way of the PCC Liaison to MAC.
But after seeing Francis's email on DP09, and considering that what I had
to say is fairly specific to rare materials, I thought this might be
better routed through the RBMS liaison to MAC, after discussion on this
list.

2022-DP10: Defining a New Subfield in Field 264 to Record an Unparsed
Statement in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2022/2022-dp10.html
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.loc.gov_marc_mac_2022_2022-2Ddp10.html&d=DwMFAg&c=009klHSCxuh5AI1vNQzSO0KGjl4nbi2Q0M1QLJX9BeE&r=RaFA-tx7jBggrhCJmvxdLx1AqWgsxw3woyGE8oCNf-o&m=naOybYCo8W8jYWeAzEDwQzfN-lG96S_ZMku_TfvIfH9Xg6FkHh8mmkW_6V1OOrMi&s=B-vXbrpZ9m2M-YAnmYZ-7wZLFmHhMxLWW21WAGJvUYI&e=>


I would support the addition of a new subfield 246 $s to contain an
unparsed PPDM or "provision" statement. This would appear to be well-suited
to accommodate various RDA manifestation statement elements: manifestation
production statement, manifestation publication statement, manifestation
distribution statement, and manifestation manufacture statement. Per RDA,
manifestation PPDM statements could include any or all of place, date, or
name of the providing agent, instead of or in addition to the separate
elements for those data.


Especially in a rare materials context, fuller transcription of imprint
statements from manifestations plays an important role in both
representation and differentiation between similar manifestations. In many
cases, statements on manuscript or early printed texts, maps, scores,
graphics, etc. may vary widely from modern Western conventions of title
page-like presentation of data on the manifestation. Statement data may be
spread out across different sources on the manifestation, they may be
grammatically inseparable from data belonging in other elements, or
presented in an order and style that doesn't correspond to ISBD order or
punctuation. Depending on the standard being applied, the cataloger may
need to transpose data, omit linking words or addresses, and/or interpolate
punctuation and bracketed data in the 260/264 field, in ways that
increasingly distort what is actually found on the manifestation, to
assemble a "complete" statement in the 264 field. Then, DCRM instructions
may also require separate notes to explain these transpositions or
interpolations. After all that, display and discovery layers are
increasingly no longer presenting the data in the ISBD syntax and order we
went through so much work to formulate in the first place.


So, the ability to record the statement(s) instead (or also) in the order
and form presented on the manifestation could lessen the need for
catalogers to parse the data at the expense of representational
transcription.


Whether the 264 field data is recorded in parsed or unparsed form (or
both), I agree with the DP that it is often valuable to supplement the
transcribed statements with controlled forms of places, agent names, and
dates in 7XX, 008, etc., to support more consistent searching, compensating
for the wide variation in whether or how the provision data may be
presented on manifestations.


All of the examples provided in the DP show statements in 264 $s that are
still "parsed" by ISBD syntax/punctuation and supplied data ("[place of
publication not identified]" etc.) for "incomplete" statements. If ISBD
parsing is still expected within a single subfield $s, then I don't see as
much benefit to the new subfield over current practice of separate
subfields that more or less duplicate the ISBD parsing. Rather, I would
consider the new $s more useful for statements as transcribed, without
being reconfigured into ISBD syntax/order or interpolated with supplied
data. For example:


$s Emprynted the yere of oure Lorde a. MCCCCC & xiij by Richard Pynson,
prynter vnto the kyng[es] noble grace.


$s Verlegt zu Jena von Joh. Jacob Ehrdten und Gedruckt zu Mühlhausen von
Tobias David Brücknern, anno 1698


$s Printed in the year MDCCI


Additionally, when a statement is not parsed, it may not be possible or
practical to select a single appropriate value from the existing second
indicator values. This may happen when the type of provision is ambiguous,
or when the statement represents multiple provision types (either
explicitly, as with "Printed and sold by" or implicitly, as early European
printers often functioned also as publishers). Or, this may be the case
when no attempt was made to determine or code the type of provision (e.g.
when the cataloger is not fluent in the language, if the data is generated
by an automated process or converted from a card), or other reasons. To
account for such cases, I would suggest either or both of these options:


The definition of 260 $s (as suggested in question 6.5) for unparsed
statements when it is not possible or desirable to associate a single
provision type with the statement.


and/or


The definition of new 264 second indicator value(s) to indicate cases when
the provision type or function is unknown or mixed/multiple, such as:


# - No information provided

and/or

5 - Mixed function or Multiple functions


Lastly, with 264_4, I wonder if it could be appropriate for $s to contain
transcribed copyright statements beyond dates, corresponding roughly to RDA
element: manifestation copyright statement, e.g.:


264_4 $c ©1866 $s Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1866
in the clerk's office of the Dist. Court of the U.S., for the Southern
District of New York


Though I think that might require a corresponding RDA revision proposal as
the manifestation copyright statement element seems more restricted to
dates.



Discussion Paper No. 2022-DP11: Defining a New Subfield in Field 490 to

Record an Unparsed Statement in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2022/2022-dp11.html
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.loc.gov_marc_mac_2022_2022-2Ddp11.html&d=DwMFAg&c=009klHSCxuh5AI1vNQzSO0KGjl4nbi2Q0M1QLJX9BeE&r=RaFA-tx7jBggrhCJmvxdLx1AqWgsxw3woyGE8oCNf-o&m=naOybYCo8W8jYWeAzEDwQzfN-lG96S_ZMku_TfvIfH9Xg6FkHh8mmkW_6V1OOrMi&s=m8okvDBcaxC_HNrWHobc5TY9drp9O7yl-Ktx9ZL34Ek&e=>


As with 2022-DP10, I would support the definition of 490 $s, which
could correspond to the RDA element: manifestation series statement, and
consider it more useful for transcribed series statements that may not have
been manipulated into ISBD syntax. For example:


490_0 $s Tract no. I of the American Peace Society

490 _0 $s No. XII, Modern standard drama, edited by Epes Sargent



A more general comment, getting beyond the scope of these two discussion
papers, but for the reasons described above, I can see a case for defining
similar subfields for other unparsed manifestation statements in the MARC
Bibliographic Format:


A new subfield in 245 for unparsed Title/SOR statements, corresponding to
RDA element: manifestation title and statement of responsibility statement
(though 245 $s is already defined for version so another subfield code
would need to be used)


250 $s for unparsed edition statements corresponding to RDA element:
manifestation edition statement.


An entirely new field for unparsed manifestation statements, corresponding
to RDA element: manifestation statement, for statements that cannot be more
specifically typed or combines title, edition, series, PPDMC, etc., into a
single statement, possibly in combination with other source data that
doesn't fall into any of the "types" (such as prices, pious invocations,
privilege statements, limitation statements, etc.), that we might otherwise
omit or give as quoted notes in the 500 field. If 264_4 $s as proposed
above is not appropriate for copyright statements, those could go in this
field instead.



I'll be curious to hear what others think before I send this on to our
liaison.


Thank you,


Matthew
-- 
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/20220606/983ed100/attachment.htm>