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.

-----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

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):

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".

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