LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for MARC Archives


MARC Archives

MARC Archives


MARC@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

MARC Home

MARC Home

MARC  March 1996

MARC March 1996

Subject:

Format integration and archival cataloging (long)

From:

Rutherford William Witthus <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

USMARC <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 27 Mar 1996 13:51:31 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (133 lines)

<<This message is being cross-posted to the following lists: Archives,
LCSH-AMC, SAACAIE, and USMARC.>>

Over the past few months, there has been a growing sense among archivists
that the original MARBI under standings concerning format integration and
archival materials have been altered to a form that is no longer
acceptable to the archival community in general.  With the release of
OCLC Technical Bulletin 212, it is clear that OCLC (interpreting USMARC)
is planning to implement format integration in a manner unanticipated by
archivists.  At OCLC, many of the old AMC records would be converted into
the Books format, coded for manuscript language materials; others would
be converted into the format reflecting the predominance of material as
read from the old record; and a few, with no format predominance, would
be converted to Mixed Materials.  This is not what the archival community
expected.  Rather, archivists expected most AMC records to go into Mixed
Materials, with a few in Books, Maps, etc..

In talking with Sally McCallum of the Library of Congress, it is clear
that a sense of the history of the agreements should inform this
discussion.  I am quoting from a message from Sally McCallum:

"The version of Leader/06 that I posted and OCLC is using is essentially
the one that was agreed upon after three MARBI discussions in 1989-1990.
The original Proposal 89-14 discussed in summer 1989 concerned changing
Archival to mixed and doing away with all the manuscript codes
(manuscript maps, manuscript music, etc.).  At that meeting the
manuscript codes were defended and a manuscript language code was
requested.

"The proposal that went back in January had a code for Manuscript language
material with a definition pretty much like the final one -- letters,
ledgers, and so on were in there.  There were still some problems, especially
whether to use b or t for mixed, so the proposal was discussed again for the
third time in the summer where it was finalized.

"Phyllis Bruns worked on this proposal and I believe she worked directly
with the SAA rep on the definitions, which included letters, diaries,
ledgers, etc. in manuscript language materials.   Of course it seems
logical to me so I would not have to stretch very far to see the reasons
but I take it not everyone sees them.

"OCLC has been concerned about this for several months and wrote to the LC
Cataloging Policy Office last fall.  Their inquiry, in fact, caused me to
remember that the definitions had been carefully revised back in 1989 and
should have been included in the new edition.  I think they were not because
they were not completed with the rest of the FI proposal and did not get
settled for another year or so thus were not picked up in the editing."

This historical background seems to be at odds with the understanding among
most archivists, which was well stated in a recent posting from Rob Spindler,
current chair of the SAA Committee on Archival Information Exchange (CAIE).

To quote from Spindlers message: "The gist of the opinions expressed by
SAA and CAIE since 1992 is simply that we had intended for mixed
materials to be the new home of virtually all the former AMC records in
this database. We did not anticipate a major change in practice in Leader
06, rather we were very interested in the ability to use archival
control" in Leader 08 across all formats. We felt THIS was the major
contribution of format integration to the archival community.

"CAIE's position has been that manuscript language materials should be
used for "booklike" manuscript materials such as codexes, theses and
dissertations and other bound items that were generally produced with the
intent of distribution.  Archival collections, which are assembled by
their creators or by collectors or archivists in the course of their
regular business, should be coded mixed materials, with a major exception
which is another point of discussion. According to OCLC TB 212, when a
single format of materials "predominates" in a collection, that
collection should be coded for the dominant format (e.g. sound
recordings, scores, visual materials. etc.) in 06. However, Leader 08 can
be coded for archival control to indicate the materials are archival
collections. When no format "predominates", mixed materials is the
appropriate choice for Leader 06. This is how this issue was left in our
most recent discussions."

Further discussions and queries on a number of lists (Archives, LCSH-AMC,
CAIE, USMARC, AutoCat) make it abundantly clear that there is not only
confusion in the coding of archival materials but also outright
dissension.   At least one major repository is planning to code archival
materials not in accordance with the published OCLC guidelines based on
USMARC.  This ambiguity in practice was neither desired nor anticipated
by the archival community after its discussions in MARBI.

For many of us, following USMARC is our standard mode of operation.  We
expect our vendors to do the same.  OCLC, in its Technical Bulletin 212,
is following the USMARC Expanded Definition of Leader/06 in formulating
its definitions of manuscript language material and mixed materials.
Unfortunately, those definitions are not what the archival community
thought it had agreed to in the MARBI discussions in the 1980s.

From my perspective as SAA liaison to MARBI, I think we need to do the
following: Write a discussion paper for MARBI to reopen and refine the
definitions related to archival and manuscript materials in USMARC.  This
discussion paper would need to address and clearly define the issue of
format predominance and the definitions of archival control, manuscript
language material, and mixed materials.  These are the areas that are
currently causing the most concern.  This discussion would result in a
definition of archival concepts for ourselves and for the general
bibliographic community, many of whose members are not archivists but do
catalog our materials. While the USMARC format is certainly a dynamic
document, we cannot expect it to change any more frequently than is
necessary to accommodate new descriptive rules, new technologies, etc.
Format integration and its ramifications have forced us to rethink how we
catalog archival materials.  I think we should use this opportunity to
review our practices and clarify our terminology.  Only then will we have
a consistent way to exchange archival information using USMARC and the
bibliographic utilities.

I would expect that it would fall on CAIE to write or assign the writing
of such a discussion paper.  The paper, if finished by the first of May,
could be included in the discussions in July in New York.

Comments to the lists from the archival and cataloging communities would
appreciated.

Rutherford W. Witthus, SAA Liaison to MARBI
Coordinator of Cataloging and Special Collections
Auraria Library
University of Colorado at Denver

N.B. This message was reviewed by and discussed with Rob Spindler, Chair
of CAIE, who agrees with its conclusions.




c

Rutherford W. Witthus           [log in to unmask]
Coordinator of Bibliographic Services and Special Collections
Auraria Library
University of Colorado at Denver

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

September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
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
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 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
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
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
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 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
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager