LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCTG1 Archives


PCCTG1 Archives

PCCTG1 Archives


PCCTG1@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCTG1 Home

PCCTG1 Home

PCCTG1  August 2013

PCCTG1 August 2013

Subject:

Re: 33x's for USNP

From:

Stephen Early <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 23 Aug 2013 16:08:06 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (130 lines)

That's two votes for print and one vote for all formats (1 abstention: me). Closing the ballot box. Print wins!

Steve


-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mary Grenci
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 10:51 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] 33x's for USNP

Since CONSER already approved continuing the master record concept for US newspapers, I've been assuming we will continue as in the past:  the bib. record will relate solely to the print version, with the addition of a note about the existence of the microfilm (or other) version(s).

This would mean the 33Xs would be solely for the print, I believe.

Mary


-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Early
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 8:01 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] 33x's for USNP

Thanks, Dale and Ed! This will likely be going into to CCM 33.10 (Newspapers: Physical description), so I want to make sure I have it right. 

"Common sense" would suggest Ed's answer (and means I don't have to include an illustrative example in 33.10). But I'm not entirely convinced that Dale is incorrect.

Any thoughts, Les, Hien, or other LC person? 

Also, following Dale's suggestion, then in rare cases in which the US newspaper is in print, film, and fiche?:

336 ## text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 ## $3 Print copies $a unmediated $b n $2 rdamedia
337 ## $3 Microfilm copies $a microform $b h $2 rdamedia
337 ## $3 Microfiche copies $a microform $b h $2 rdamedia
338 ## $3 Print copies $a volume $b nc $2 rdacarrier
338 ## $3 Microfilm copies $a microfilm reel $b hd $2 rdacarrier
338 ## $3 Microfiche copies $a microfiche $b hd $2 rdacarrier

Or, to reduce redundancy (1 336, 2 337's, and 3 338's)?

336 ## text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 ## $3 Print copies $a unmediated $b n $2 rdamedia
337 ## $3 Microform copies $a microform $b h $2 rdamedia
338 ## $3 Print copies $a volume $b nc $2 rdacarrier
338 ## $3 Microfilm copies $a microfilm reel $b hd $2 rdacarrier
338 ## $3 Microfiche copies $a microfiche $b hd $2 rdacarrier

Steve


Stephen T. Early
Cataloger
Center for Research Libraries
6050 S. Kenwood
Chicago, IL  60637
773-955-4545 x326
[log in to unmask] 
CRL website: www.crl.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ed Jones
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 9:47 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] 33x's for USNP

My understanding of the Master Record convention is that the description relates solely to the print (technically the newspaper as originally published), so logically the 33X fields, being part of the description, would also relate solely to the print.


-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dale Swensen
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 9:22 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] 33x's for USNP

Steve,

Media and carrier types are repeatable, so it could possibly go

336 ## text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 ## unmediated $b n $a microform $b h $2 rdamedia
338 ## volume $b nc $a microfilm reel $b hd $2 rdacarrier

Or perhaps even something like

336 ## text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 ## $3 Print copies $a unmediated $b n $2 rdamedia
337 ## $3 Microfilm copies $a microform $b h $2 rdamedia
338 ## $3 Print copies $a volume $b nc $2 rdacarrier
338 ## $3 Microfilm copies $a microfilm reel $b hd $2 rdacarrier

Of course appropriate to whatever the microform carrier is.

Dale

Dale Swensen
Head of Technical Services & Digital Access Howard W. Hunter Law Library 260D JRCB Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602
801-422-4407
Fax 801-422-0404
[log in to unmask]



-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Early
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 8:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCTG1] 33x's for USNP

Anyone know what the 336, 337, and 338 would be for an RDA USNP MARC record?
I'm guessing they would either be for the print or possibly omitted entirely?

Here's the section in LC PCC PS 0.0 on USNP if anyone needs a refresher:


Newspapers
LC practice: LC's records for U.S. newspapers in microform follow the guidelines of the United States Newspaper Program (USNP). USNP is not required to follow the CONSER practice of creating separate records for U.S.
titles in microform, but generally uses the "master record convention" to account for the various physical forms in which a newspaper is held. The bibliographic record describes the newspaper as it was originally published.
The physical format, whether original newsprint, microform, or reprint, is described in the Copy Field of the OCLC local data record.

Stephen T. Early
Cataloger
Center for Research Libraries
6050 S. Kenwood
Chicago, IL  60637
773-955-4545 x326
[log in to unmask]
CRL website: www.crl.edu

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
August 2019
July 2019
May 2019
April 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
October 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
December 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
June 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
July 2000

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager