Thanks for the feedback.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Matthew C. Haugen
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 6:20 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Bound-withs in RDA
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.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Adam L. Schiff <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
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
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]>
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Bound-withs in RDA
Hey, come back here!
The LC-PCC PS for 22.214.171.124 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?
Team Leader, Subject Specialist Catalogers;
UCLA Cataloging & Metadata Center
11020 Kinross Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90095-7230
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Adam L. Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]
Matthew C. Haugen
Rare Book Cataloger
102 Butler Library
Columbia University Libraries
E-mail: [log in to unmask]