Thank you Jim and Kevin for suggesting the use of $8 to link the fields
pertaining to a reproduction together when using a single record approach.
(Jim suggested it on the PCC list and Kevin on the CONSER list.) I looked
at the MARC documentation and it seems to me that this is a real
possibility. Subfield 8 has been defined for 533, 538, 583, 8XX, and 856.
Field link type of r for reproduction seems like it would definitely be
I sent a message to the DLF Registry of Digital Masters Working Group to
see what they thought, and Rebecca Guenther said that she thought it was a
fine idea, as long as we don't expect any functionality from a system. The
original intent was that a system could group all fields with the
associated $8 fields together for display, but that has never happened.
However, we could use it for this situation, and maybe someday system
vendors would display it as was originally intended.
Someone asked for an example of what this might look like, so I copied the
serial single record example for American journal of agricultural
economics, which is on the CIC/CONSER/PARS draft document, and added $8 to
533s, 538s, 583s, and 856. I also added an 830 for Cornell's digital
collection, Core historical literature of agriculture, with a $8. The $81
links all of Cornell's digital registry information and the $82 links all
of University of Chicago's pretend digital registry information. The \r
indicates this field contains information that pertains only to the
reproduction. I'm not sure if I did this right since I've never actually
used $8 before, so let me know if anyone sees any problems. .
The sample record is available at:
What do people think? I am especially interested in hearing from those who
objected to adding a series which applies only to the electronic version to
the print version record when using a single record approach. Would you be
more willing to accept such a series on the print version record when using
the single record approach if we used $8 in this manner?