LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  October 2014

PCCLIST October 2014

Subject:

Re: Bound-withs in RDA

From:

"Ed M. Kazzimir" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:21:00 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (191 lines)

I think in an OPAC local notes should ideally be stored as associated fields somehow linked by record number so they are safe when a record is replaced--maybe someday in a FRBR copy record or institution sub-record.  While it may not be ideal to have local notes embedded in the master record, I still think such notes can be informative to other libraries and should display somehow in a shared (OCLC) system.

There are a few, rare times when I have entered a local note in the master OCLC record because the note can be helpful to another cataloger, other library staff, or user in identifying the item or discovering related items.  Examples (AACR2 non-PCC records):

1)
260    [S.l. : $b s.n., $c 1990?]
500    Handwritten note on copy: Unpublished manuscript. International Workshop on Population Ecology and Management of Walrus. Seattle, WA, April 1990. $5 AkARLIS

This handwritten note may not be on everyone's copy, but is nevertheless important in identifying the item--when and where it is from.  I think every user of this bibl. record ought to know this.  Perhaps the note could simply read "500   Cataloging agency has copy with handwritten ..." or "500   ARLIS Library has copy with ..." without $5.  But without $5 I am afraid someone will say "that's local information" and zap it out.  At least the $5 method says "it's local but leave it in there".

2)
500   This binder contains nine reports on culverts that span various creeks in the area of Tyonek, Alaska. ... blah, blah ...
500   ARLIS copy accompanied by: (1) a price list for culverts from Contech/ Culfabco (2 pages), and (2) a memorandum dated ... $5 ARLIS
505   [list of nine reports]
501   ARLIS: With: [Price list for culverts from Contech/Culfabco] -- Beluga/Tyonek trip report ... ... $5 ARLIS
(500 is a descriptive note.  501 is formatted as a regular contents note.  I like both.)

In addition to the nine reports, loose papers were placed in the binder flap that are directly related to the reports.  I'm not sure whether every copy of the binder has these, but these papers are useful and they were intended to be shared in the binder.  An outside (non-local) researcher might be interested in knowing the papers exist somewhere.  Somehow in OCLC this information ought to be shared, particularly if the items don't normally warrant separate cataloging.  (I suppose now if a record has lots of $5 subfields, the pieces might need separate cataloging so I may look back at this item.)

Upon transferring to our OPAC, I could edit such fields into a 590 local field prefaced by the library name/acronym in front (the usual procedure for notes input locally in our consortial catalog), like:  590   ARLIS: ...   Or I could remove $5 if the note already identifies my library, as the note will be retained (if still existing in the OCLC record) if ever overlaid in our OPAC.  But I keep these $5 subfields for now as they are, as I find it useful to locate these records in the OPAC by that code.


Ed Kazzimir
ARLIS



-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 4:51 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Bound-withs in RDA

Adam,

While I am sympathetic with the plight of UW and other libraries that have voluntarily chosen to go with the system it did (OCLC local?), I do not think local notes belong in OCLC master records. It doesn't seem appropriate to inconvenience hundreds (or more) other libraries, who need to remove these notes as they have nothing to do with their own copy of the resource, just so another library or consortium can include its local information in the master record because there is no other way for them to have local information in their records. Further, it's not just a matter of UW putting a local note once in a while into a master record--potentially there could be dozens or even hundreds of local notes in a given record, each pertaining to a different library. Take the case of an expensive numbered limited edition. Let's say 100 libraries own a book that exists in an edition of 200 copies. Each will want to record the number of its own copy (at least I should think each would). That's 100 local notes in a single master record, if we were to agree to a policy favoring including local notes in master records. I am not convinced. I respectfully suggest that you need to seek a different solution (than depending on the master record for local information) to this problem in your shared catalog.

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.

________________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Adam L. Schiff <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 11:28:56 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Bound-withs in RDA

I can tell you a reason why these notes should be in master OCLC records.  We have a consortial catalog that is based on the master record.  Whenever a master record is changed for any reason, by any library, a new copy of that record comes into our shared catalog and overlays what is there.  We have no ability to protect from overlay certain fields in the record.  Since 590s don't stay in the master record, they are lost in our catalog.  We do have a very limited ability to add local fields to a copy of the record that sits in what's called the "institution zone".  So we can input some local 590s that would be preserved.  But it's a tedious thing to do, and in some cases having a locally marked field that stays in the OCLC master works better in our situation.  Nevertheless, it does mean that other libraries' local fields in the master record also come into our catalog, and there's nothing we can do about that.  I don't think we have the ability to display only local fields that have a subfield $5 with our MARC code.  Anyway, just an alternative viewpoint based on a particular kind of system that we use.

Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014, Robert Maxwell wrote:

> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 03:39:59 +0000
> From: Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Bound-withs in RDA
>
> This same question is circulating on the exlibris (rare books) list and I'd like to reiterate on the PCC list something Richard Noble said there this morning: "I don't get why LC-PCC PS instructions should extend to copy-specific info at all" (he elaborated on this but that was the gist). I couldn't agree more.
>
> I can see why LC might want to record its own practice (as "LC Practice") for local information in this document since the LC-PCC PSs do comprise LC's local policy manual (unfortunately-I think LC and PCC should have separate manuals, just like any other cataloging agency has its own policy manual separate from PCC's, but the decision was made to merge LC's policy manual with PCC's).
>
> But why in the world would PCC want to include as "PCC Practice" instructions for how to record bound with information for items bound subsequently to publication at all in BIBCO records? This is local information and in my opinion does not belong in BIBCO records, which are supposed to be usable by anyone in the community without extensive modification. When a cataloger includes this sort of thing in the BIBCO record (which in OCLC is the master record)-even if the cataloger is obeying the instructions in this PS-it just means that when I want to use the record I need to delete the information that's pertinent only to the other library before I can use it in my catalog. And I DO delete this sort of stuff from master records. If anything the "PCC practice" statement should be "Do not record copy-specific information such as "bound subsequent to publication" in BIBCO records." It certainly shouldn't be prescribing to PCC libraries precisely which met!
 hod to use (e.g. 501 vs. 590) when recording this local information in their own records. But simpler would be to delete "PCC practice" from the "items bound together" section of 28.1.1.3 and leave it marked just "LC practice". The current instruction definitely shouldn't be marked "PCC practice", at least not the paragraph pertaining to copy specific information.
>
> Bob
>
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801)422-5568
>
> "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Matthew C. Haugen
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 7:20 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Bound-withs in RDA
>
> Hi Hermine,
>
> At Columbia, our practice is much like your examples. We continue to preface our bound-with and other copy-specific notes for special collections materials to identify the collection and/or copy, e.g. "500 Rare Book copy 2: Imperfect; all after page 125 wanting. $5 NNC" for clarity in display, since it otherwise looks like any other note; also, there might be more than one copy in the same library/collection which can't be distinguished by org codes.
>
> So, unless your display is configured to generate a label like "Local note" etc., or otherwise link the notes to the specific collection/library based on the code in $5, you might still want to consider keeping the preface. Users generally don't know what those codes mean (if they display), and especially when there are multiple copies, the notes alone do not identify which copy has the features described in that note.
>
> Matthew
>
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Adam L. Schiff <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> Hermine,
>
> Do the different libraries have their own MARC organization codes?  If so, the $5 could be more specific and you don't have to preface the "With" with anything.  I checked the MARC Organization codes:
>
> CLU-C  =  University of California, Los Angeles, William Andrews Clark
> Memorial Library
>
> CLU-SC =  University of California, Los Angeles, Department of Special
> Collections
>
> So I think you can do:
>
> 501 With: [X]. Bound together subsequent to publication. $5 CLU-C
> 501 With: [Y]. Bound together subsequent to publication. $5 CLU-SC
>
> Adam Schiff
> Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries
>
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2014, Vermeij, Hermine wrote:
> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 22:10:36 +0000
> From: "Vermeij, Hermine"
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Bound-withs in RDA
>
> Hey, come back here!
>
> The LC-PCC PS for 28.1.1.3 gives this practice for items bound together:
>
> LC practice/PCC practice: If analytical descriptions are provided for two or more resources issued independently that have subsequently been 'bound' together (see RDA 1.5.3), use the structured description technique for relating the items.
>
> In the structured description (MARC field 501), give the title proper (or preferred title if different), the statement of responsibility, and the entire publication, etc., statement. If there are more than two works, cite all the other titles in the record for the first; in the records for succeeding titles, cite only the first. Use ISBD punctuation, except omit the period-space-dash-space between areas. When multiple items are listed, separate them by a space-dash (two adjacent hyphens)-space.
>
> In general cataloging, for all copy-specific (or probably copy-specific) situations, add the statement "Bound together subsequent to publication" or the statement "Probably bound together subsequent to publication" and add a MARC organization code for the institution in subfield $5. For rare book cataloging, adding one or the other of the statements regarding "bound with" or "probably bound with" is optional according to DCRM(B) and Rare Materials Section practice. Do not add subfield $5 to notes for "Issued with" situations.
>
> And some examples like this:
>
> 501 ##   $a With: The Bostonian Ebenezer. Boston : Printed by B. Green & J. Allen, for Samuel Phillips, 1698 -- The cure of sorrow. Boston : Printed by B. Green, 1709. Bound together subsequent to publication. $5 DLC
>
> This is all fine. But quite often we run into complicated bound-with situations where a title is owned by more than one branch, or a library has more than one copy, each bound with a different set of other titles. Our system (Voyager) deals quite well with these situations, but we're struggling with how to record the information in the bibliographic records. In the past we've done it with 590 notes, e.g.:
>
> 590 Clark Library copy bound with: [X]
> 590 Special Collections copy bound with: [Y]
>
> But now that we're instructed to use the 501 with a $5, what is the best way to record these complicated relationships? Can we still do something like this?
>
> 501 Clark Library copy with: [X]. Bound together subsequent to
> publication. $5 CLU
> 501 Special Collections copy with: [Y]. Bound together subsequent to
> publication. $5 CLU
>
> Or is there a better way?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Hermine
> _________________________________
> Hermine Vermeij
> Team Leader, Subject Specialist Catalogers; Music Cataloger UCLA
> Cataloging & Metadata Center
> 11020 Kinross Ave.
> Box 957230
> Los Angeles, CA 90095-7230
> (310) 825-3438<tel:%28310%29%20825-3438>
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:hermi
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Adam L. Schiff
> Principal Cataloger
> University of Washington Libraries
> Box 352900
> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
> (206) 543-8409<tel:%28206%29%20543-8409>
> (206) 685-8782<tel:%28206%29%20685-8782> fax
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> Matthew C. Haugen
> Rare Book Cataloger
> 102 Butler Library
> Columbia University Libraries
> E-mail:
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Phone: 212-851-2451
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager