I'd agree with this as well.  With the provider-neutral approach, 710 (in my mind) an attribute that applies, no matter the provider.  773 would only indicate a relationship between a manifestation and a collection one manifestation appears in.  Plus (as already stated) it reflects the nature of the relationship better in any case.

Steve Shadle/Serials Access Librarian  *****  [log in to unmask]
University of Washington Libraries      ***     Phone: (206) 685-3983
Seattle, WA 98195-2900                   *        Fax: (206) 543-0854

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Rhonda Marker wrote:

> I was thinking the same thing. 773 has the notion of a vertical relationship 
> (host) which is what we really mean when we say that an object "belongs to" a 
> collection.
>
> Rhonda
>
> Kate Harcourt wrote:
>> 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
> Rhonda Marker
> Repository Collection Manager
> Rutgers University Libraries
> [log in to unmask]
> 732-932-8573 x195
>