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
> 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?
>> 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
>>> 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)
>>> 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?
>> 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