At Columbia, we stretched the definition of 773 and use it in our records 
for this purpose. Could we consider indexing 773 and revising the 
definition for the digital age?

Kate


On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Renette Davis wrote:

> Thank you everyone who responded (both on list and off list) to my email of Oct. 14 with subject Digital collections. I thought I would summarize what the responses were and see if anybody else has comments. The original questions and the responses were as follows:
>
> 1. Do you think it is important to provide access for the name of the digital collection in the records for the individual items in the collection?
>
> Everybody said yes
>
> 2. If it is important to provide access for the name of the digital collection, do you think the access should be only in the local record or should it also be in the national record?
>
> Everybody said national record
>
> 3. If it is important to provide access for the name of the digital collection, should it be a series added entry, a title added entry, or something else? (If something else, what?)
>
> The following fields were suggested: 730, 740, 773, and 830.
>
> I looked at the MARC guidelines for 740 and they say, "This field is used for added entries for uncontrolled related titles and uncontrolled analytical titles. Uncontrolled means that the title is not controlled through an authority file or another bibliographic record." Since there is a bibliographic record for the collection itself, I don't think 740 would be correct.
>
> The MARC guidelines for 773 say, "This field contains information concerning the host item for the constituent unit described in the record (vertical relationship). This field is provided in order to enable the user to locate the physical piece that contains the component part or subunit being described." We could possibly stretch the definition to include "virtual resource" as well as "physical piece", but it seems like this is not really the field to use, especially since 773 is not indexed in either OCLC or our local catalog.
>
> That leaves 730 and 830. The MARC guidelines for 730 say, "Uniform title, a related or an analytical title that is controlled by an authority file or list, used as an added entry. Added entries are assigned according to various cataloging rules to give access to the bibliographic record from headings which may not be more appropriately assigned as 630 (subject Added Entry - Uniform Title) or 830 (Series Added Entry - Uniform Title) fields."
>
> Now the question is whether the name of a digital collection would more appropriately be assigned an 830. The AACR2 definition of series includes, "1. A group of separate items related to one another by the fact that each item bears, in addition to its own title proper, a collective title applying to the group as a whole. The individual items may or may not be numbered." Our digital collections seem to fit that definition since the title of the digital collection appears, in addition to the title of the item, when each item is viewed online.
>
> I searched OCLC using "digital collections" as title, Internet as limit, and dates 2008, 2007, and 2006. I found 3 collections where the name of the digital collection is in 730, 4 collections where it is in 830, and 1 collection where it is in 773. I also have one record from a PCC response where the name of the digital collection is in 740.
>
> So now my question for this group is whether this is a decision that each institution should be making on its own or whether we need a national policy. If we need a national policy, what group should be making it?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Renette
>
>

Kate Harcourt
Director, Original and Special Materials Cataloging
102 Butler Library
Columbia University Libraries
phone: 212.854.2714
fax: 212.854.5167