Thanks, Renette. I can see that you all have given this a lot of
thought and that your needs are somewhat different from other
Because of this, I'm not sure that we are understanding each other so
I've added a few more comments below and then will wait to hear the
results of the meeting. Think of this as fodder for discussion.
Renette Davis wrote:
> Thanks, Celine, for your comments. I'm going to try to give some
> background on how and why it was decided to use the 533 on print
> version records when using the single record approach, for anyone who
> might be interested.
> First of all, there are already a number of print version records in
> the Registry of Digital Masters with 533, and I think you're right, it
> is very difficult to interpret what version these records are. For
> examples see OCLC #642567, 17604932, and 19823978.
These records are taking the single record approach to new lengths! As
one of my colleagues put it: "it looks like a poor man's FRBR record!"
It's hard to know what a public user would make of these, but maybe as
long as there's a URL, it won't matter.
> Early on in our discussions, Robert Bremer from OCLC said that
> catalogers are seeing a 533 reproduction note in print version records
> and assuming that the record really represents the electronic
> reproduction itself. As a result, they are inputting duplicate print
> version records.
We seem to be talking at cross-purposes here. Outside of the
preservation world, records with 533 fields have always represented only
the reproduction. Someone cataloging the original is not supposed to
use a record with a 533 field, but input a new record for the print. Of
course this way of defining and describing a reproduction predates the
current "single record for multiple formats" environment so it used to
be understood that one record represented one format, and in records
with a 533, that format was the reproduction.
Now that single records can represent more than one format and also
happen to look a lot like the old reproduction records, the waters are
very muddied, indeed. I'm not against redefining the 533 field in the
single record environment, but just pointing out that while a revised
533 note looks like a minor and harmless change, it actually represents
a MAJOR change for many of us.
What you're really saying is: from now on, any record with a 533
represents both the print and the reproduction. In the preservation
environment, this makes sense. In the wider world of cataloging,
libraries cataloging a reproduction are often doing it because they
don't have the original. What would a record for a reproduction-only
look like? Ironically, we might be forced to go back to following
AACR2, basing the description on the reproduction alone and adding a
note like a 534 to describe the original! Do we know yet what RDA is
going to say about reproductions and single records?
> We talked some about using different wording in the subfield a, such
> as "Also available as electronic reproduction" rather than "Electronic
> reproduction" on the print version records if using a single record
> approach. The thought was that this would make it more clear that the
> record itself is not for the electronic version.
> We also experimented with some other possibilities. We considered
> adding detailed information to the 530, but as you pointed out, it
> doesn't have good subfielding like the 533. Subfields b, c, and d
> could not be defined in the 530 as they are in the 533 because they
> are already defined for other purposes in the 530.
> Another idea was to use holdings to give details about the electronic
> reproduction. We experimented with 843, which is the holdings
> equivalent to bibliographic field 533. At the present time, however,
> there are a number of issues in implementing the holdings approach.
> Holdings records are often not indexed or easily integrated with
> bibliographic records, and only bibliographic records are available
> for OAI harvesting, which is a goal for digital registry records.
> Another possibility was to use a 776 in the print version record to
> indicate the existence of, and give details about, the electronic
> version. It would not point to an electronic version record, because
> there would be no electronic version record if the single record
> approach was being used, but rather it would be used to give details
> about the electronic reproduction.
> However, there were some problems with using the 776. In addition, it
> is expected that at some time in the future, a holdings approach may
> be able to be used. The other digital registry fields, 533, 538, 583,
> and 856 are all valid in the holdings format, but the 776 is not.
> Therefore, the Digital Library Federation Registry of Digital Masters
> Working Group decided that 533 was the best way to go.
> It was decided that subfield a should include wording like "Also
> available as electronic reproduction" rather than "Electronic
> reproduction" in the print version record when using a single record
> approach, to help make it clear that this is not the electronic
> version record. When using a separate record approach, the wording in
> the electronic version record would be "Electronic reproduction."
> To answer your question about why we are using a 533 in the electronic
> version record when using a separate record approach, that has been in
> the Registry of Digital Masters Record Creation Guidelines - available
> at http://www.diglib.org/collections/reg/DigRegGuide.htm - all along.
> The draft document Guidance for Cataloging Locally Digitized Resources
> applies to resources that already exist in our local institutions
> which we are digitizing for preservation purposes, so they clearly are
> reproductions. We didn't even discuss the possibility of not following
> LCRI 1.11A for these.
> Thanks for pointing out the relevant documentation from OCLC and LC. I
> am assuming that if these guidelines are accepted, that documentation
> would be revised.
> This draft document, which was an attempt to expand on the DLF Record
> Creation Guidelines, was a cooperative effort between members of
> CONSER, a CIC Digital Resources Cataloging Task Group, the ALA/PARS
> Intellectual Access to Preservation Data Interest Group, the DLF
> Registry of Digital Masters Working Group, and staff from the Library
> of Congress and OCLC. Our goal has been to come up with something that
> everyone can live with, so if other people on this list have comments,
> we definitely want to hear them.
> At 11:36 AM 1/5/2007, you wrote:
>> Hi Renette,
>> Since I won't be able to attend the meeting, I'm sending comments to
>> you now.
>> This is especially on your category "Monograph - Single record
>> approach." If I am understanding you correctly, you are advocating
>> use of the 533 to note the availability of an electronic reproduction
>> on a record also meant to represent a print edition. In my
>> experience, this is not the way the 533 has been used in monograph
>> records, at least in OCLC. Monograph records with a 533 field are
>> meant to represent ONLY the reproduction; the fact that the original
>> print version is described in the body of the record is just a
>> cataloging shortcut.
>> The development by the Library of Congress of this 533 model for
>> reproductions dates back to microform reproductions and pre-dates the
>> single-record approach that is now being used to represent
>> print/electronic editions with one record.
>> There's no question that this is now a very muddled situation but
>> documentation by OCLC and LC still indicate that records with 533
>> fields are not meant to be single records representing multiple
>> versions. (That being said, however, LC is obviously ambivalent about
>> this as can be seen in the last sentence of the LCRI 1.11A below).
>> Up to now, a quick way to tell "reproduction-only records" from
>> "single records" is that reproduction records use field 533 to
>> describe the other format, while single records use a 530. The
>> problem here is that the 530 used in the single record doesn't have
>> as good subfielding for description details as the 533 does so I can
>> see why it might not meet your needs.
>> I know that all this is in flux and I personally have never liked the
>> 533 reproduction model, so I'm not defending it. It's just that I'm
>> concerned that records for various permutations of electronic
>> resources are proliferating in OCLC and it is getting more and more
>> difficult to interpret what version(s) a record represents. I'm also
>> concerned about your suggested use of the 533 in a separate record
>> for the monographic electronic edition. If you are describing the
>> digitized version in its own record, wouldn't the details of that
>> version be part of the basic record and not require a 533? I'm
>> afraid a looser use of 533 will only add to the confusion unless OCLC
>> rethinks its "master record" approach.
>> It may be that the real problem here is that the 533 field has been
>> turned into an edition identifier and given a role and importance far
>> beyond that of a descriptive note, making it difficult to reclaim it
>> now as simply descriptive information. As an alternative, could
>> OCLC's Local Holdings functionality be tapped into for piece-specific
>> preservation detail
>> Anyway, I've given below some existing documentation on the use of
>> the 533 that would need clarification for this new use of 533 (I've
>> bolded the key sentences).
>> Celine Noel
>> UNC-Chapel Hill
>> --*From OCLC's Bibliographic Formats and Standards, Field 533*
>> For *electronic resources*, use field 533 for information describing
>> a remotely accessed electronic reproduction of a work previously
>> published in printed form, including electronic books, as outlined in
>> Library of Congress Rule Interpretation 1.11A. *Apply this practice
>> only when the reproduction manifestation is represented by its own
>> bibliographic record, separate from any record for the original print
>> *--*LCRI 1.11A*:
>> Non-Microform Reproductions
>> LC practice: Follow these guidelines for reproductions of previously
>> existing materials that are made for: preservation purposes in
>> formats other than microforms; non-microform dissertations and other
>> reproductions produced "on demand"; and, electronic reproductions.
>> *These guidelines identify the data elements to be used in the record
>> for the reproduction, separate from the record for the original.* For
>> some electronic reproductions, however, LC may delineate details of
>> the reproduction on the record for the original manifestation rather
>> than create a separate record for the reproduction. LC catalogers
>> should consult "Draft Interim Guidelines for Cataloging Electronic
>> Resources" <http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/dcmb19_4.html> for more
>> information (other cataloging agencies may have developed their own
>> guidelines in this regard).
>> --*Cataloging Electronic Resources: OCLC-MARC coding guidelines*
>> >>Option 2: *Single record with a reference to the electronic item*
>> You may create a record for the nonelectronic version and add an
>> annotation about the existence of and access to the electronic
>> version. The nonelectronic version is the primary version and the
>> electronic copy is secondary.
>> 1. Select the workform based on the current definition of "Type" and
>> the primary aspect of the item.
>> 2. Do not input field 006 for the electronic version.
>> 3. Do not code "Form of Item"(008/23, 008/29, 006/06, or 006/12,
>> depending on bibliographic format) for the electronic version.
>> 4. Optionally, include field 007.
>> 5. *Note the availability of the electronic version in field 530.*
>> >>*Electronic Reproductions of Items Previously Published in Print Form*
>> In May 2000, the Library of Congress issued a revised version of LC
>> Rule Interpretation 1.11A. The revision expands LC's "microform
>> exception" to AACR2, outlined in the related LCRI for Chapter 11, to
>> include remotely accessed electronic reproductions of works
>> previously published in printed form (including electronic books).
>> *This practice applies only when the reproduction manifestation is
>> represented by its own bibliographic record, separate from any record
>> for the original.*
>> ... Give in a single note (533 field) all other details relating to
>> the reproduction and its publication/availability, including format
>> of the reproduction, dates of publication and/or sequential
>> designation of issues reproduced (for serials), place and name of the
>> agency responsible for the reproduction, date of the reproduction,
>> physical description of the reproduction if different from the
>> original, series statement of the reproduction (if applicable), notes
>> relating to the reproduction (if applicable).
>> --*OCLC's When to Input a New Record*
>> 533 Reproduction Note
>> Absence or presence of field justifies a new record. Having the
>> information in field 500 instead, does not justify a new record.
>> [I translate this as: If you have the original item, do not use a
>> record with a 533 reproduction note; if you have the reproduction, do
>> not use a record that doesn't have a 533]
>> Renette Davis wrote:
>>> Those of you who are digitizing resources in your local institutions
>>> and trying to figure out how to get the records into the Registry of
>>> Digital Masters may be interested in attending the following meeting.
>>> Renette Davis
>>> Intellectual Access to Preservation Data Interest Group
>>> Saturday, January 20, 2007: 4-6pm
>>> 2B WCC (Convention Center)
>>> Guidance for Cataloging Locally Digitized Resources for the Registry
>>> of Digital Masters
>>> The program will include:
>>> 1) Background on the Registry of Digital Masters and MARC fields
>>> used in digital registry records;
>>> 2) Discussion of the draft document, "Guidance for Cataloging
>>> Locally Digitized Resources"
>>> (This document has been developed by a group comprising members
>>> from: CONSER, CIC Heads of Cataloging, CIC Heads of Preservation,
>>> the PARS Intellectual Access to Preservation Data Interest Group,
>>> the DLF Registry of Digital Masters Working Group, and staff from
>>> the Library of Congress and OCLC.)
>>> Welcome and announcements Tyra Grant, Interest
>>> Group co-chair (University of Kansas)
>>> Overview and background Sherry Byrne
>>> (University of Chicago)
>>> Introduction to the Digital Registry Glenn Patton (OCLC)
>>> Introduction to the 583 field Debra McKern
>>> (Library of Congress)
>>> Cataloging guidelines to date Renette Davis
>>> (University of Chicago)
>>> Harvard practice and perspective Steven Riel (Harvard)
>>> Questions and discussion All speakers above
>>> plus Rebecca Guenther (Library of Congress)