Hey, come back here!
The LC-PCC PS for 126.96.36.199 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