The definition of "location" in the MFHD glossary is almost the same as
the definition of "location data area" in Holdings Statements for
Bibliographic Items (ANSI/NISO Z39.71). The definition pretty much
encompasses the information carried in the 852.

We have always interpreted 852 $z to be used for any general note
relating to the item or the copy of a serial identified in the 852. It
seems to me that any note in the 852 would relate to the local copy of
the resource.

Note also that in the definition and scope of 866-868 in MFHD, it says
"These fields are normally not used in holdings for single-part items."

I would agree that the text in 852 $z could be improved to avoid this
kind of confusion.

John Hostage
Harvard Law School Library

account for net dev and marc wrote:
> Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:04:37 -0500
> From: Robert Bothmann <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Example for MFHD 852 $z
>
> I'm curious about the definition of 852 $z in the MFHD. It states "$z
> contains a note relating to the location of the item identified in the
> field." Then it gives an example of 852 01 $z Signed by author. This
> example appears, to me, to be in conflict with the definition.
>
>
>
> How is the note "signed by author" a note relating to the location? To
> me, this is a note relating to the local copy of the resource and should
> therefore go in an 866 #1 $z.
>
>
>
> If my interpretation is correct, could the MFHD example for the 852 $z
> please be changed to reflect the meaning of the definition? If it is not
> correct, could someone please explain and provide several more examples
> of 852 $z notes?