Print

Print


Deborah,
If you are cataloging what appears to be a unique manifestation, the
difficulty in determining what is unique to your local copy and what might
be found in other copies (including manuscript notes) makes your practice
sensible. If there are other copies where the features are clearly not
present (or that have features such as additional plates that are not
present in your copy), then a local note or the $5 at the end of a 5XX
field makes sense.  That is why those pesky $5s can be useful.  Deleting
fields is relatively little trouble in most online systems anyway.

Best wishes,
Larry
-- 
Laurence S. Creider
Head, Archives and Special Collections Dept.
University Library
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 575-646-4756
Fax: 575-646-7477
[log in to unmask]

On Wed, November 19, 2014 8:22 am, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:
> Hi Will,
>
> In that circumstance, I make it a general note even though it refers to a
> specific copy, if that is the justification for, say, a date or an author
> attribution. This usually only comes into play when we're cataloging a
> previously-unrecorded title or edition, but presumably that information
> would stay with the record as a general note unless and until another
> justification was found that did not rely on the characteristic peculiar
> to the copy.
>
> Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | [log in to unmask] |
> 202.675-0369 | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 | www.
> folger.edu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Will Evans
> Sent: Wednesday, 19 November 2014 08:45
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Bound-withs in RDA
>
>> why OCLC does not automatically strip out all fields coded $5 from the
> master records, just as it now strips 590's and 852's.
>
>> Some of those fields may be local data, but are also very useful to
> others
>
>
> Additionally, I've used a 500 note coded $5 for information specific to
> the item in my hand (e.g. an manuscript annotation), but also serves to
> justify information I provided in areas 1-5.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Will
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Will Evans
> Chief Rare Materials Catalog Librarian
> Library of the Boston Athenaeum
> 10 1/2 Beacon Street
> Boston, MA   02108
>
> Tel:  617-227-0270 ext. 224
> Fax: 617-227-5266
> www.bostonathenaeum.org
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 1:59 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Bound-withs in RDA
>
> Some of those fields may be local data, but are also very useful to
> others.  For example, if we have made a preservation facsimile of a book,
> that's important for everyone to know, so that they can decide what to do
> with their damaged copy of the book and can know where they can obtain a
> replacement copy.  So I would be very careful about just stripping all
> local fields from master records.
>
> Adam Schiff
>
> **************************************
> * 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]           *
> **************************************
>
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:
>
>> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:33:43 +0000
>> From: Deborah J. Leslie <[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
>>
>> Coming to this discussion late. I'm in agreement with Richard Noble
>> and
> others that item information does not belong in a description of the
> manifestation. What I wonder, and continue to wonder, is why OCLC does not
> automatically strip out all fields coded ?5 from the master records, just
> as it now strips 590's and 852's.
>>
>> Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | [log in to unmask] |
>> 202.675-0369 | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 | www.
>> folger.edu
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ted P Gemberling
>> Sent: Friday, 31 October 2014 13:30
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Bound-withs in RDA
>>
>> Ed,
>> I agree that such notes are good to put on the master record at times.
>> I
> think you can argue that in a sense they're not local notes, or maybe
> better, they're not *strictly* local notes, since while reporting
> something in your local copy, they may be important for identifying the
> resource to any library that has it. I think your first example is
> definitely something you'd want to include in a 500 with a subfield 5.
> Without it, other libraries may not be able to identify 260 information.
> Actually, given the handwritten note, I would think you'd be justified in
> putting Seattle in brackets in the 260 or 264.
>>
>> I'm not as sure I'd put the notes in your second example in a master
> record. If it was clear that the binder was supposed to have price lists
> or other things in it, you could just include a 500 with something like
> "with space for price lists from contractors." Then researchers that were
> interested in the price lists could check the copies in various libraries
> to see which ones had them and which contractors they were. That sort of
> situation seems possible. But since this work seems unique to Tyonek, not
> a generic work on culverts, I'd think that including the specifics on the
> record would be appropriate.
>>
>> Just some thoughts.
>> Ted Gemberling
>> UAB Lister Hill Library
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ed M. Kazzimir
>> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 3:21 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Bound-withs in RDA
>>
>> 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
>>
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 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]
> http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>