While I am sympathetic with the plight of UW and other libraries that have voluntarily chosen to go with the system it did (OCLC local?), I do not think local notes belong in OCLC master records. It doesn't seem appropriate to inconvenience hundreds (or more) other libraries, who need to remove these notes as they have nothing to do with their own copy of the resource, just so another library or consortium can include its local information in the master record because there is no other way for them to have local information in their records. Further, it's not just a matter of UW putting a local note once in a while into a master record--potentially there could be dozens or even hundreds of local notes in a given record, each pertaining to a different library. Take the case of an expensive numbered limited edition. Let's say 100 libraries own a book that exists in an edition of 200 copies. Each will want to record the number of its own copy (at least I should think each would). That's 100 local notes in a single master record, if we were to agree to a policy favoring including local notes in master records. I am not convinced. I respectfully suggest that you need to seek a different solution (than depending on the master record for local information) to this problem in your shared catalog.
Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Adam L. Schiff <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 11:28:56 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Bound-withs in RDA
I can tell you a reason why these notes should be in master OCLC records. We have a consortial catalog that is based on the master record. Whenever a master record is changed for any reason, by any library, a new copy of that record comes into our shared catalog and overlays what is there. We have no ability to protect from overlay certain fields in the record. Since 590s don't stay in the master record, they are lost in our catalog. We do have a very limited ability to add local fields to a copy of the record that sits in what's called the "institution zone". So we can input some local 590s that would be preserved. But it's a tedious thing to do, and in some cases having a locally marked field that stays in the OCLC master works better in our situation. Nevertheless, it does mean that other libraries' local fields in the master record also come into our catalog, and there's nothing
we can do about that. I don't think we have the ability to display only local fields that have a subfield $5 with our MARC code. Anyway, just an alternative viewpoint based on a particular kind of system that we use.
University of Washington Libraries
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014, Robert Maxwell wrote:
> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 03:39:59 +0000
> From: Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Bound-withs in RDA
> This same question is circulating on the exlibris (rare books) list and I’d like to reiterate on the PCC list something Richard Noble said there this morning: “I don't get why LC-PCC PS instructions should extend to copy-specific info at all” (he elaborated on this but that was the gist). I couldn’t agree more.
> I can see why LC might want to record its own practice (as “LC Practice”) for local information in this document since the LC-PCC PSs do comprise LC’s local policy manual (unfortunately—I think LC and PCC should have separate manuals, just like any other cataloging agency has its own policy manual separate from PCC’s, but the decision was made to merge LC’s policy manual with PCC’s).
> But why in the world would PCC want to include as “PCC Practice” instructions for how to record bound with information for items bound subsequently to publication at all in BIBCO records? This is local information and in my opinion does not belong in BIBCO records, which are supposed to be usable by anyone in the community without extensive modification. When a cataloger includes this sort of thing in the BIBCO record (which in OCLC is the master record)—even if the cataloger is obeying the instructions in this PS—it just means that when I want to use the record I need to delete the information that’s pertinent only to the other library before I can use it in my catalog. And I DO delete this sort of stuff from master records. If anything the “PCC practice” statement should be “Do not record copy-specific information such as “bound subsequent to publication” in BIBCO records.” It certainly shouldn’t be prescribing to PCC libraries precisely which met!
hod to use (e.g. 501 vs. 590) when recording this local information in their own records. But simpler would be to delete “PCC practice” from the “items bound together” section of 18.104.22.168 and leave it marked just “LC practice”. The current instruction definitely shouldn’t be marked “PCC practice”, at least not the paragraph pertaining to copy specific information.
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Matthew C. Haugen
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 7:20 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Bound-withs in RDA
> Hi Hermine,
> At Columbia, our practice is much like your examples. We continue to preface our bound-with and other copy-specific notes for special collections materials to identify the collection and/or copy, e.g. “500 Rare Book copy 2: Imperfect; all after page 125 wanting. $5 NNC” for clarity in display, since it otherwise looks like any other note; also, there might be more than one copy in the same library/collection which can’t be distinguished by org codes.
> So, unless your display is configured to generate a label like "Local note" etc., or otherwise link the notes to the specific collection/library based on the code in $5, you might still want to consider keeping the preface. Users generally don’t know what those codes mean (if they display), and especially when there are multiple copies, the notes alone do not identify which copy has the features described in that note.
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Adam L. Schiff <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> Do the different libraries have their own MARC organization codes? If so, the $5 could be more specific and you don't have to preface the "With" with anything. I checked the MARC Organization codes:
> CLU-C = University of California, Los Angeles, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library
> CLU-SC = University of California, Los Angeles, Department of Special Collections
> So I think you can do:
> 501 With: [X]. Bound together subsequent to publication. $5 CLU-C
> 501 With: [Y]. Bound together subsequent to publication. $5 CLU-SC
> Adam Schiff
> Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2014, Vermeij, Hermine wrote:
> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 22:10:36 +0000
> From: "Vermeij, Hermine" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Bound-withs in RDA
> Hey, come back here!
> The LC-PCC PS for 22.214.171.124 gives this practice for items bound together:
> LC practice/PCC practice: If analytical descriptions are provided for two or more resources issued independently that have subsequently been 'bound' together (see RDA 1.5.3), use the structured description technique for relating the items.
> In the structured description (MARC field 501), give the title proper (or preferred title if different), the statement of responsibility, and the entire publication, etc., statement. If there are more than two works, cite all the other titles in the record for the first; in the records for succeeding titles, cite only the first. Use ISBD punctuation, except omit the period-space-dash-space between areas. When multiple items are listed, separate them by a space-dash (two adjacent hyphens)-space.
> In general cataloging, for all copy-specific (or probably copy-specific) situations, add the statement "Bound together subsequent to publication" or the statement "Probably bound together subsequent to publication" and add a MARC organization code for the institution in subfield $5. For rare book cataloging, adding one or the other of the statements regarding "bound with" or "probably bound with" is optional according to DCRM(B) and Rare Materials Section practice. Do not add subfield $5 to notes for "Issued with" situations.
> And some examples like this:
> 501 ## $a With: The Bostonian Ebenezer. Boston : Printed by B. Green & J. Allen, for Samuel Phillips, 1698 -- The cure of sorrow. Boston : Printed by B. Green, 1709. Bound together subsequent to publication. $5 DLC
> This is all fine. But quite often we run into complicated bound-with situations where a title is owned by more than one branch, or a library has more than one copy, each bound with a different set of other titles. Our system (Voyager) deals quite well with these situations, but we're struggling with how to record the information in the bibliographic records. In the past we've done it with 590 notes, e.g.:
> 590 Clark Library copy bound with: [X]
> 590 Special Collections copy bound with: [Y]
> But now that we're instructed to use the 501 with a $5, what is the best way to record these complicated relationships? Can we still do something like this?
> 501 Clark Library copy with: [X]. Bound together subsequent to publication. $5 CLU
> 501 Special Collections copy with: [Y]. Bound together subsequent to publication. $5 CLU
> Or is there a better way?
> Hermine Vermeij
> Team Leader, Subject Specialist Catalogers;
> Music Cataloger
> UCLA Cataloging & Metadata Center
> 11020 Kinross Ave.
> Box 957230
> Los Angeles, CA 90095-7230
> (310) 825-3438<tel:%28310%29%20825-3438>
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Adam L. Schiff
> Principal Cataloger
> University of Washington Libraries
> Box 352900
> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
> (206) 543-8409<tel:%28206%29%20543-8409>
> (206) 685-8782<tel:%28206%29%20685-8782> fax
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Matthew C. Haugen
> Rare Book Cataloger
> 102 Butler Library
> Columbia University Libraries
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Phone: 212-851-2451
Adam L. Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]