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.


On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Adam L. Schiff <[log in to unmask]>

> 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]>
>> 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 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
>> [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
> (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]
Phone: 212-851-2451