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

Tue Jun 7 08:30:56 MDT 2022

Hi Francis, Thank you for your reply. The 881 field had somehow escaped my
notice until now. Looking at it, it would seem that the various 881
subfields accomplish what I was envisioning in 246 and 490 $s, in
which case I see less need for those new subfields. I will take that into
account as I revise the comments before submitting them to the MAC liaison.

Matthew

On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 8:52 AM Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu>
wrote:

> Matthew,
>
>
>
> Thanks for sharing this. You nicely articulate the use cases in which a
> rare materials description might be motivated to employ unparsed
> transcribed statements “in the order and form presented on the
> manifestation.” My sense is that the examples you give would be within
> scope of MARC field 881: Manifestation Statements
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.loc.gov_marc_bibliographic_bd881.html&d=DwMFAw&c=009klHSCxuh5AI1vNQzSO0KGjl4nbi2Q0M1QLJX9BeE&r=bqvMzn5svMdVdLTynbtuuiSmNU5dU2X2C8ih_Su0ZW4&m=mfdhP0PKuhx1qsqSwrtVLHFT4eT0bI0o0_7aAAzpUeVo3vEahde2CRc3F8slGdOB&s=bexkV5TM_8kdg6_hOe_7497Ug4f62ztEg1_JRB53SUY&e=>,
> where the cataloger could apply any of the three transcription options
> outlined by RDA in Manifestation statements
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__access.rdatoolkit.org_en-2DUS-5Fala-2D6f241594-2D3b46-2D3eb3-2Da053-2D1ecec038fa34&d=DwMFAw&c=009klHSCxuh5AI1vNQzSO0KGjl4nbi2Q0M1QLJX9BeE&r=bqvMzn5svMdVdLTynbtuuiSmNU5dU2X2C8ih_Su0ZW4&m=mfdhP0PKuhx1qsqSwrtVLHFT4eT0bI0o0_7aAAzpUeVo3vEahde2CRc3F8slGdOB&s=yRYzO2j1o07DRyIFe0Ow99aR2qMPwFh2E0LrKsBzkzw&e=>
> (i.e., the peculiar “basic” transcription, normalized transcription, or any
> other guidelines, such as DCRM). Have I misunderstood what’s allowed in the
> 881 field?
>
>
>
> I very much agree with your statement: “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.” The proposal says its aim is to provide a
> “less complex and simpler alternative,” but it fails on this count if it
> still requires ISBD parsing.
>
>
>
> Francis
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> *On Behalf Of *Matthew C.
> Haugen
> *Sent:* Monday, June 6, 2022 12:12 PM
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
> *Subject:* [DCRM-L] MARC discussion papers 2022-DP10 and 11
>
>
>
> 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__nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Furldefense.proofpoint.com-252Fv2-252Furl-253Fu-253Dhttps-2D3A-5F-5Fwww.loc.gov-5Fmarc-5Fmac-5F2022-5F2022-2D2Ddp10.html-2526d-253DDwMFAg-2526c-253D009klHSCxuh5AI1vNQzSO0KGjl4nbi2Q0M1QLJX9BeE-2526r-253DRaFA-2Dtx7jBggrhCJmvxdLx1AqWgsxw3woyGE8oCNf-2Do-2526m-253DnaOybYCo8W8jYWeAzEDwQzfN-2DlG96S-5FZMku-5FTfvIfH9Xg6FkHh8mmkW-5F6V1OOrMi-2526s-253DB-2DvXbrpZ9m2M-2DYAnmYZ-2D7wZLFmHhMxLWW21WAGJvUYI-2526e-253D-26data-3D05-257C01-257Cfrancis.lapka-2540yale.edu-257C7947b003d5f14bb2c8ff08da47d75310-257Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c-257C0-257C0-257C637901287386357318-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C3000-257C-257C-257C-26sdata-3DOJIo1SqEx3fXtxYLSljc6IOgGF7X5q8J2Q9KfbbMnSo-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFAw&c=009klHSCxuh5AI1vNQzSO0KGjl4nbi2Q0M1QLJX9BeE&r=bqvMzn5svMdVdLTynbtuuiSmNU5dU2X2C8ih_Su0ZW4&m=mfdhP0PKuhx1qsqSwrtVLHFT4eT0bI0o0_7aAAzpUeVo3vEahde2CRc3F8slGdOB&s=Pnk-ximvwPqJbmhu3HKDZokpNFfr7lHvS6x_euyxxqU&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__nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Furldefense.proofpoint.com-252Fv2-252Furl-253Fu-253Dhttps-2D3A-5F-5Fwww.loc.gov-5Fmarc-5Fmac-5F2022-5F2022-2D2Ddp11.html-2526d-253DDwMFAg-2526c-253D009klHSCxuh5AI1vNQzSO0KGjl4nbi2Q0M1QLJX9BeE-2526r-253DRaFA-2Dtx7jBggrhCJmvxdLx1AqWgsxw3woyGE8oCNf-2Do-2526m-253DnaOybYCo8W8jYWeAzEDwQzfN-2DlG96S-5FZMku-5FTfvIfH9Xg6FkHh8mmkW-5F6V1OOrMi-2526s-253Dm8okvDBcaxC-5FHNrWHobc5TY9drp9O7yl-2DKtx9ZL34Ek-2526e-253D-26data-3D05-257C01-257Cfrancis.lapka-2540yale.edu-257C7947b003d5f14bb2c8ff08da47d75310-257Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c-257C0-257C0-257C637901287386357318-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C3000-257C-257C-257C-26sdata-3D9sUZVxwXPVbx4l1FTGgcQYnxXiPrCX6kF2prRgL-252FA1o-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFAw&c=009klHSCxuh5AI1vNQzSO0KGjl4nbi2Q0M1QLJX9BeE&r=bqvMzn5svMdVdLTynbtuuiSmNU5dU2X2C8ih_Su0ZW4&m=mfdhP0PKuhx1qsqSwrtVLHFT4eT0bI0o0_7aAAzpUeVo3vEahde2CRc3F8slGdOB&s=LJDLIUGrXXNselSIfHi-qApBT_jukRG8Qb36T5a5ajw&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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Funiversitylife.columbia.edu-252Fpronouns-26data-3D05-257C01-257Cfrancis.lapka-2540yale.edu-257C7947b003d5f14bb2c8ff08da47d75310-257Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c-257C0-257C0-257C637901287386357318-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C3000-257C-257C-257C-26sdata-3Dh0pEuVTjUYMK-252BlAlS51v-252BdDnvwd7WSuSTyQOTP0tB1M-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFAw&c=009klHSCxuh5AI1vNQzSO0KGjl4nbi2Q0M1QLJX9BeE&r=bqvMzn5svMdVdLTynbtuuiSmNU5dU2X2C8ih_Su0ZW4&m=mfdhP0PKuhx1qsqSwrtVLHFT4eT0bI0o0_7aAAzpUeVo3vEahde2CRc3F8slGdOB&s=EUWZi2KzFa2sG3xLrTcqhN_YG2yoqYYWWzdVND_EQGM&e=>
>

-- 
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/20220607/0b7e9425/attachment-0001.htm>